Driscoll’s Berry Pesticide Residue Lawsuit in Quebec, Gauthier v. Driscoll’s Canada Operations Inc., No. 500-06-000075-263

Driscoll’s Canada Operations Inc. and Driscoll’s Inc. face a putative class action in Quebec alleging that Driscoll’s-brand strawberries, raspberries, blackberries and blueberries contained pesticide residues or other chemical substances above Canadian regulatory limits, and that consumers were never told.

Sibylle Gauthier filed the application on September 28, 2026, in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal (Class Actions Chamber), through the firm Trudel Johnston & Lespérance. The case is No. 500-06-000075-263. The court registry lists it at the application-for-authorization stage. In Quebec, authorization is the step comparable to class certification elsewhere, and a judge has not yet granted it.

There is no settlement, no claim form, no payment amount and no consumer filing deadline.

Quick Facts, Gauthier v. Driscoll’s Canada Operations Inc. and Driscoll’s Inc.

Detail	What the court filing says
Case name	Sibylle Gauthier v. Driscoll’s Canada Operations Inc. and Driscoll’s Inc.
Case number	500-06-000075-263
Court	Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal (Class Actions Chamber)
Filing date	September 28, 2026
Plaintiff’s counsel	Trudel Johnston & Lespérance
Defendants	Driscoll’s Canada Operations Inc.; Driscoll’s Inc.
Products identified	Driscoll’s-brand strawberries, raspberries, blackberries and blueberries
Proposed class	Individuals who purchased Driscoll’s berries in Quebec since January 1, 2022
Main allegation	Failure to disclose pesticide or chemical residues above Canadian limits; misleading representations
Law invoked	Quebec Consumer Protection Act
Relief sought	Reduction of class members’ obligations; punitive damages
Class status	Not authorized; putative class action
Settlement / claim form / claim deadline	None

What Does Sibylle Gauthier Allege About Driscoll’s Berries?

The application alleges that Driscoll’s sold berries in Quebec containing pesticide residues or other chemical substances above Canadian limits without adequately informing consumers.

It alleges that Driscoll’s once ran a system to monitor the time between pesticide application and harvest, and that this system was removed in whole or in part in 2022. It further alleges that Driscoll’s was told of residue irregularities in berries destined for Canada no later than October 2022, and received additional reports from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), RQA Inc. and Canadian buyers in 2023 and 2024.

These are allegations in the plaintiff’s filing, not findings by the Superior Court of Quebec.

Which Pesticides Does the Driscoll’s Quebec Complaint Name?

The complaint names bifenthrin, iprodione and captan. It alleges these were found in Driscoll’s fruit above Canadian thresholds during CFIA inspections between 2022 and 2024.

How Does the California Harada Lawsuit Connect to the Quebec Case?

The Quebec application relies in part on a separate California lawsuit by former Driscoll’s employee David Harada. According to the Quebec filing, Harada alleges that about 50% of Driscoll’s exports destined for Canada between 2022 and 2024 contained fruit above Canadian thresholds, with the affected exports valued at nearly US$100 million.

Those figures come from Harada’s allegations as repeated in the Quebec application. They are not a judicial finding. The California case is independent, and its outcome does not automatically decide the Quebec authorization question.

What Does the Quebec Complaint Say About Driscoll’s Food-Safety Statements?

Gauthier argues that shoppers cannot tell the residue level on berries by looking at them in a store, and that consumers reasonably expect grocery-store food to meet Canadian food-safety rules.

The complaint points to Driscoll’s website statements on food safety, residue testing, transparency and testing practices, and to the phrase “Only the Finest Berries” on packaging. The plaintiff alleges these statements reinforced the belief that the berries complied with Canadian requirements.

Again, these are claims in an application for authorization. They do not establish that Driscoll’s violated the law.

What Does the Quebec Application Say About Plaintiff Sibylle Gauthier?

Gauthier says she has bought Driscoll’s berries for personal and household use since January 2022, at least 12 packages per year, for an estimated 50 or more packages and at least C$150 spent. She says she knew pesticides can be used to grow berries but expected residues to stay within legal limits. She learned of the alleged issue from a September 26, 2026 Radio-Canada report.

The filing also states she was pregnant in 2025 and has been breastfeeding, which made the allegations especially concerning to her. The complaint does not establish that she or anyone else suffered a medical injury caused by Driscoll’s berries.

Related article: Purdue Pharma Sentenced to $5.544 Billion in Criminal Penalties, What Opioid Victims Should Know

Who Is in the Proposed Driscoll’s Quebec Class?

The proposed class is defined as:

Individuals who purchased Driscoll’s brand strawberries, raspberries, blackberries or blueberries in Quebec since January 1, 2022.

Purchases made outside Quebec, or of non-Driscoll’s brands, fall outside this proposed definition. Because the court has not authorized the case, the definition is not final and the judge may change it.

Has the Quebec Court Authorized the Driscoll’s Class Action?

No. The September 28, 2026 filing asks the Superior Court of Quebec to authorize a class action and appoint Gauthier as representative. Until a judge grants that request, this is a putative class action, not an authorized one.

If authorization is granted, the court will define the class, appoint the representative and order notice to class members. If it is refused, the proposed class action ends, subject to any appeal rights.

What Law Does the Driscoll’s Quebec Lawsuit Invoke?

The application is based on practices prohibited by Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act, including alleged omission of important information and allegedly misleading representations. It asks the court to decide whether Driscoll’s:

• sold berries with pesticide or chemical residues above Canadian maximum limits;
• failed to disclose that information;
• made false or misleading representations about the berries;
• should be required to reduce class members’ obligations; and
• should pay punitive damages.

The court has not ruled on any of these questions.

What Money Is Sought in the Driscoll’s Quebec Lawsuit?

The lawsuit does not identify a fixed settlement or guaranteed payment. Gauthier asks the court to order Driscoll’s to pay an amount, to be set by the court, as a reduction of class members’ obligations, plus interest and additional indemnity. She also seeks punitive damages in an amount for the court to decide, along with collective recovery and costs.

There is no approved payout at this stage. Do not trust any website claiming a set dollar amount is available to Driscoll’s berry buyers.

Is There a Driscoll’s Pesticide Residue Settlement or Claim Form?

No. As of October 5, 2026, the registry shows no settlement administrator, claim form, settlement payment or consumer claims deadline. If the case is later authorized and ends in a settlement or judgment, a court-approved process would set the claims procedure and deadlines.

Do not pay any website or person claiming you can already file a Driscoll’s Quebec settlement claim.

What Should Quebec Driscoll’s Berry Buyers Do Now?

No claim needs to be filed. If you bought Driscoll’s berries in Quebec since January 1, 2022, it is sensible to keep any records that could later show your purchases:

• grocery receipts and electronic grocery records;
• loyalty-program purchase histories;
• online grocery orders; and
• photos of product packaging.

Proof of purchase is generally not required at the authorization stage. If the case is later authorized and succeeds or settles, the court or a claims process would decide how members prove membership. Keeping records does not make you a confirmed class member. You can follow developments through the Quebec class action registry entry for No. 500-06-000075-263 or by contacting Trudel Johnston & Lespérance.

This is a civil consumer-protection case, not a recall. The filing does not establish that Driscoll’s berries on shelves today are unsafe.

Can Quebec Buyers Opt Out of the Proposed Driscoll’s Class?

There is no current opt-out deadline. The plaintiff’s proposed order asks for a 60-day exclusion period after notice to class members if the class action is authorized. That is a request, not a court-ordered deadline. Any real opt-out instructions would come in a court-approved notice.

What Happens Next in the Quebec Driscoll’s Lawsuit?

The next question is whether the court will authorize the class action. According to the assignment notice attached to the filing:

• Driscoll’s Canada Operations Inc. and Driscoll’s Inc. must respond within 15 days of service, or 30 days if a defendant has no domicile, residence or establishment in Quebec.
• The defendants may say whether they will agree to a resolution, propose mediation, contest the application or propose a settlement conference.
• The date, time and courtroom for the authorization application were still to be set by the judge coordinating the class-actions chamber.

Key Dates in Gauthier v. Driscoll’s Canada Operations Inc.

Event	Date
Proposed class period begins	January 1, 2022
Radio-Canada report cited by plaintiff	September 26, 2026
Application for authorization filed	September 28, 2026
Defendant response period	15 days after service (30 days in specified circumstances)
Authorization hearing	To be determined
Settlement / consumer claim deadline	None

How Is the Quebec Driscoll’s Case Different From the U.S. Berlinger PFAS Lawsuit?

The Quebec case is separate from the U.S. litigation AllAboutLawyer.com already covers: Driscoll’s Strawberries PFAS Lawsuit, Were You Affected? — Berlinger v. Driscoll’s, Inc., No. 5:26-cv-06444.

• Quebec case: Gauthier v. Driscoll’s Canada Operations Inc. and Driscoll’s Inc., No. 500-06-000075-263. Covers strawberries, raspberries, blackberries and blueberries bought in Quebec, based on alleged nondisclosure and misleading representations under Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act.
• U.S. case: Berlinger v. Driscoll’s, Inc., No. 5:26-cv-06444. A proposed U.S. class action over alleged PFAS-related pesticide residues on conventional strawberries, under separate U.S. consumer-protection claims.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Driscoll’s Quebec Pesticide Residue Lawsuit

Is there a Driscoll’s pesticide residue class action in Quebec?

Yes. Sibylle Gauthier filed an application on September 28, 2026, seeking authorization to bring a class action against Driscoll’s Canada Operations Inc. and Driscoll’s Inc. It is No. 500-06-000075-263 in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal.

Has the Quebec court authorized the Driscoll’s berry lawsuit?

No. It is still at the authorization application stage, so it is a putative class action.

Who is in the proposed Driscoll’s Quebec class?

Individuals who purchased Driscoll’s strawberries, raspberries, blackberries or blueberries in Quebec since January 1, 2022.

Is there a Driscoll’s berry settlement in Quebec?

No. The registry identifies no settlement.

Can I file a Driscoll’s pesticide residue claim right now?

No. There is no court-approved claim form or claims process for this Quebec proceeding.

How much money could Quebec Driscoll’s buyers receive?

No payment amount has been set. The plaintiff seeks a reduction of class members’ obligations and punitive damages, in amounts for the court to decide if the claims succeed.

Which pesticides does the Driscoll’s Quebec complaint name?

Bifenthrin, iprodione and captan, in connection with alleged CFIA findings between 2022 and 2024.

Does the Driscoll’s lawsuit prove the berries made consumers sick?

No. The allegations are unproven, and the filing does not establish that Driscoll’s berries caused any specific illness or injury.

Does buying Driscoll’s berries in another Canadian province make me part of the Quebec case?

Not under the proposed definition, which is limited to purchases in Quebec.

Do I need to opt out of the Driscoll’s Quebec lawsuit now?

No. There is no court-ordered opt-out period. The plaintiff has proposed 60 days after notice if the class is authorized, but that is not a current deadline.

Bottom Line on the Driscoll’s Quebec Pesticide Residue Lawsuit

This is a new putative class action, not a settlement. Sibylle Gauthier alleges that Driscoll’s Canada Operations Inc. and Driscoll’s Inc. sold berries in Quebec with pesticide residues above Canadian limits and failed to tell consumers. The allegations are unproven, the Superior Court of Quebec has not authorized the class action, and there is no claim form or deadline. The next step is the court’s decision on authorization.

Sources

1. Quebec Class Action Registry, Sibylle Gauthier c. Driscoll’s Canada Operations Inc. et Driscoll’s Inc., No. 500-06-000075-263: filing date, proposed class and stage.
2. Application for Authorization to Exercise a Class Action and to Be Appointed Representative, filed September 28, 2026: allegations, proposed class, issues and relief.
3. Trudel Johnston & Lespérance, counsel for Sibylle Gauthier: public case page and application.

Editorial note: This article reports allegations in a proposed class action application. They have not been proven in court, and the filing does not establish liability by Driscoll’s Canada Operations Inc. or Driscoll’s Inc.

Disclaimer: AllAboutLawyer.com provides general legal information, not legal advice, and is not a law firm. Consult a qualified lawyer about your situation.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the Quebec Class Action Registry entry and the Application for Authorization filed September 28, 2026 (registredesactionscollectives.quebec), as of October 5, 2026. Last Updated: October 5, 2026.