Episode
Québec Major Junior Hockey League, now doing business as Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey League Inc., et al. v. Lukas Walter, et al. (41532)
- Published
- Feb 17, 2026
- Duration seconds
- 9385
- Processing state
not_requested
Actions
POST https://stenobird.com/v1/public/podcasts/supreme-court-of-canada-hearings-floor-audio-6708170/episodes/qu-bec-major-junior-hockey-league-now-doing-business-as-quebec-maritimes-junior-hockey-league-inc-et-al-v-lukas-walter-et-al-41532/transcription-requests
Idempotently request low-priority transcript generation for this episode.GET https://stenobird.com/podcast/supreme-court-of-canada-hearings-floor-audio-6708170/qu-bec-major-junior-hockey-league-now-doing-business-as-quebec-maritimes-junior-hockey-league-inc-et-al-v-lukas-walter-et-al-41532.md
Read the agent-friendly Markdown representation of this episode resource.
Summary
The respondents in these applications for leave to appeal, Mr. Walter and Mr. Gobeil, were recognized as representative plaintiffs for the class covered by a class action brought against the applicants/interveners in these applications for leave to appeal, that is, the Québec Major Junior Hockey League, now doing business as the Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey League Inc., and the impleaded hockey teams that are members of the League. In the class action, the respondents submitted that the applicants/interveners were refusing to recognize major junior hockey players as having employee status, with the result that the players had no access to the protection provided by legislation governing working conditions. Two other similar class actions were authorized, one in Ontario against the Ontario Hockey League and one in Alberta against the Western Hockey League. In total, 4,286 major junior hockey players, including 1,702 in Quebec, are covered by the class actions. On March 31, 2020, the parties to the three class actions reached a settlement agreement. The agreement was submitted to the superior courts in each of the three provinces through a joint hearing. The superior courts rejected the agreement in October 2020 solely on the basis that the scope of the release provided for was overly broad. In June 2023, after the releases were renegotiated, all of the parties, including the respondents, signed an amendment to the initial settlement agreement in order to replace the release provisions. However, it appears that, shortly after the signing, the respondents disavowed their signature and announced that they would oppose the submission of the amended agreement for judicial approval. Despite the instructions given by the respondents, Mr. Savonitto, a member of one of the fir…