CANADA

PROVINCEOFQUEBECDISTRICTOFMONTREAL

(ClassAction)SUPERIORCOURT

NO:500-06-000796-165 ALBERT HADIDA, domiciled at 6595 Mackle

road #222, Côte St-Luc, district of Montreal,Quebec,H4W2Y1

Applicant

-vs-NISSAN CANADA INC., legal person having itsheadofficeat5290OrbitorDrive,P.O.Box1709,StationB,Mississauga,Ontario,L4W4Z5andNISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC., legal personhaving its headoffice at 1NissanWay, Franklin,Tennessee,37067,UnitedStatesofAmericaandNISSANMOTOR CO., LTD., legal personhavingitsheadofficeat1-1,Takashima1-chome,Nishi-ku,Yokohama-shi,Kanagawa220-8686,Japan

Defendants APPLICATIONTOAUTHORIZETHEBRINGINGOFACLASSACTIONANDTOAPPOINTTHE

STATUSOFREPRESENTATIVEPLAINTIFF(ARTICLE571ANDFOLLOWINGC.C.P)

TOONEOFTHEHONOURABLEJUDGESOFTHESUPERIORCOURT,SITTINGINANDFORTHEDISTRICTOFMONTREAL,YOURAPPLICANTSTATESASFOLLOWS:I. GENERALPRESENTATION

A) THEACTION

-2-

1. Applicantwishestoinstituteaclassactiononbehalfofthefollowinggroup,ofwhichheisamember,namely:

Group:

All natural persons, legal persons established for a privateinterest, partnerships and associations or other groups notendowed with juridical personality, resident in Canada(subsidiarilyQuebec),who,anytimebetweenMay8th,2006toNovember 30th, 2015 (the “Class Period”), purchased and/orleasedoneormoreoftheNissanVersaModelYears2007-2012(the “Defective Vehicles”)manufactured,distributed, supplied,wholesaledand/orimportedbyNissan;

(hereinafterreferredtoasthe“Group”)

oranyothergrouptobedeterminedbytheCourt;

2. DuringtheClassPeriod,DefendantsNissanCanada,NissanNorthAmericaInc.,andNissan Motor Co. Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Nissan”), eitherdirectlyorthroughawholly-ownedsubsidiary,agentoraffiliate,manufacturedandsoldautomobilesthroughindependentretailers,outlets,andauthorizeddealershipsthroughoutCanada,includingwithintheprovinceofQuebec;

3. InNovemberof2015,DefendantNissanCanadaInc.mailedouttosome,butnottoall, Group members a document titled “Owner Notification Transport Canada2015402”(the“RecallNotice”),ApplicantdisclosingtheRecallNoticehereceivedasExhibitP-1;

4. TheRecallNoticemailedbyDefendantNissanCanadaInc.tosomeGroupmembersadvisesthem,interalia,ofthefollowing:

Nissan has decided that a defect which relates to motor vehiclesafety exists in Model Year 2007-2012 Nissan Versa vehicles. OurrecordsindicatethatyouownorleasetheNissanvehicleidentifiedbytheVINontheinsideofthisnotice.

ReasonforRecall

Due to a production issue, the front coil springs in certain Versavehicles may have insufficient corrosion coating. Heavyconcentrationsofroadsaltusedinthewintermaycausethefrontcoilsprings todevelopcorrosionover time.This can result in fractureofthespring.Afracturedspringmaydamagethefronttireandadverselyaffectthehandlingofthevehicle,increasingtheriskofacrash.

-3-

Frenchversion:

Nissan a déterminé qu’il existe une défectuosité par rapport à lasécurité des véhicules automobiles sur certainsNissanVersa2007à2012.Nosdossiers indiquentquevousêtespropriétaireou locataireduvéhiculeNissanquiporteleNIVindiquédansleprésentavis.

Raisondurappel

En raison d’un problème de production, les ressorts hélicoïdauxavantdecertainesVersapourraientnepasavoirreçuunrevêtementanticorrosionadéquat.Defortesconcentrationsdeseldevoirieutiliséenhiverpourraientcauserlacorrosiondesressortshélicoïdauxavantavec le temps, ce qui pourrait se traduire par une fracture desressorts.Desressortsbriséspourraientendommagerlespneusavantetnuireà latenuederouteduvéhicule,augmentantainsi le risquedecollision.

[Ouremphasisunderlinedinbold]

5. Contrary to what is provided under the CanadaMotor Vehicle Safety Act and itsRegulations, Nissan did not send the Recall Notice to all Nissan Versa (2007-2012yearmodels)ownersandprescribedpersons(definedasapersonwhoobtainedthevehiclefromthecompany,suchasalessee)within60daysafterthedayonwhichitbecameawareoftheDefect,butwaitedcloseto5yearsbeforesendinganynoticestoGroupmembers(asmorefullydetailedbelowatparagraphs35to38);

6. AsoftheeveoffilingthisApplication,someGroupmembershavenotyetreceivedtheRecallNoticeatall;

LatentDefects:7. As manufactures, distributers, suppliers, wholesalers and/or importers of the

DefectiveVehicles,NissanisboundtowarrantGroupmembersthatthevehiclesanditsaccessoriesare,atthetimeofthesale,freeoflatentdefectswhichrenderthemunfit fortheuseforwhich itwas intendedorwhichsodiminish itsusefulnessthatthebuyerwouldnothaveboughtitorpaidsohighapriceifhehadbeenawareofthem;

8. According to Transport Canada, Nissan’s recall affecting 110,604 Canadian NissanVersa vehicles (year models 2007-2012) is related to the vehicles’ suspensionsystems because “the front suspension coil springsmay have beenmanufacturedwith an inadequate phosphorous coating, and/or could have low residual stress inthe springs” (hereinafter the “Defect”), as it appears from the Recall Details forTransportCanadaRecall#2015402,ApplicantdisclosingExhibitP-2;

-4-

9. InitsRecallNotice,ExhibitP-1,NissanadmitstosellingandleasingvehiclestoGroupmembersthatcontainedtheDefect;

10. In its Technical Service Bulletin 1 #NTB15-078, sent to its dealers and datedSeptember 17th, 2015, Nissan informs its dealers that “Nissan is conducting thisVoluntary Recall Campaign to replace the front suspension coil springs on certainspecificModelYear2007-2012Versavehicles…”,ApplicantdisclosingExhibitP-3;

11. Theword“suspension”doesnotappearintheRecallNoticesenttoGroupmembers,but is again described in a letter sent to Nissan by the U.S. Department ofTransportation, dated September 30th, 2015, confirming that the recall concerns218,019vehiclesintheUnitedStatesandthattheDefecteffectsthesuspensionsofGroup members’ vehicles, Applicant disclosing Exhibit P-4, which states thefollowing:

Makes/Models/ModelYears:NISSAN/VERSA/2007-2012

Mfr'sReportDate:September14,2015

NHTSACampaignNumber:15V-573

Components:SUSPENSION:FRONT:SPRINGS:COILSPRINGS

PotentialNumberofUnitsAffected:218,019

12. TheDefectintheDefectiveVehiclesislatent,sufficientlyserious,existedatthetimeofthesaleandwasunknowntotheGroupmembers;

13. AreasonablebuyerinthesamecircumstancescouldnothavedetectedtheDefectatthetimeofthesale;

14. Asprofessionalsellers,NissanispresumedtohaveknownabouttheDefectsincetheNissanVersavehicles(yearmodels2007to2012)weremanufacturedandsoldfromMay8th, 2006, throughNovember12th, 2012,datesconfirmedonthe lastpageofNissan’s Updated TSB to its dealers, sales, service and parts managers, datedFebruary15th,2016,ApplicantdisclosingExhibitP-5;

15. Groupmembersbenefit fromthe legalpresumptionthat theDefectexistedat thetime of the sale, since the Defective Vehicles sold by Nissan to Group members

1Technicalservicebulletins(hereinafter“TSB”)areissuedbyNissantoassisttechnicianswithdiagnosisandrepair.TSBsaddressspecificconcernsorconditionssuchasroughidles,noisesandrattles.Thesespecificconcernscanbetheresultofcustomerorrepairshopfeedback.TheTSBforaspecificconcernorconditionwillprovideanup-to-dateengineering-approvedvehiclemodification,repairprocedureorservicepart(source:http://www.nissan-techinfo.com/TSB/TSB_xml/nmIndex.aspx);

-5-

malfunctionand/ordeteriorateprematurelyincomparisonwithidenticalvehiclesorvehiclesofthesametype;

16. NissancannotrebutthispresumptionbecauseithasadmittedintheRecallNotice,ExhibitP-1,thatthe“defect”is“duetoaproductionissue”andnotduetoimproperuseofthevehiclebyGroupmembers;

17. Moreover,Nissan’sclaimthat“Heavyconcentrationsofroadsaltusedinthewintermay cause the front coil springs to develop corrosion over time” only underscoresthefactthatNissanfailedtoadequatelydesigntheDefectiveVehicles,whichshouldhave never been sold in markets such as Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, andSaskatchewan(tonameafew),whereharshwintersarecommonplace;

18. According to Nissan’s TSB dated February 15th 2016, Exhibit P-5, the DefectiveVehicles were manufactured at the plants in the cities of Aguascalientes andCuernavaca,inMexico;

19. OnMay8th,2006,thedatethatNissanbeganmanufacturingtheDefectiveVehiclesinMexico,Nissanwasverywellawarethatthereareheavierconcentrationsofsaltused on roads in Canada and snowbelt states, than used inMexico and southernstates(ifanyatall);

20. OnMay 8th, 2006, Nissan knew that it should have manufactured the DefectiveVehicleswithadequatephosphorous/corrosioncoating,sothattheywouldbefitforthe purposes for which these kind of vehicles are ordinarily used (that is, to bedrivenonstreets,includingonCanada’swinteryroads);

21. Nissan admits that the Defective Vehicles were not durable in normal use for areasonable length of time, and this having regard to their price, the terms of thecontractsandtheconditionsoftheirusebyGroupmembers;

22. Asaresultoftheforegoing,NissanviolatedQuebec’sConsumerProtectionAct(the“CPA”), the Civil Code of Quebec (the “CCQ”) and other consumer and saleslegislationapplicableacrossCanada,becausetheDefectiveVehicleswerenotfitforthepurposesforwhichgoodsofthatkindareordinarilyused(i.e.fordrivingwithouttheriskofcrashcausinginjuryand/orpropertydamage);

23. GroupmembersareentitledtoexercisedirectlyagainstNissanarecoursebasedonalatentdefectintheDefectiveVehicles,becausetheycouldhaveneverdiscoveredtheDefectbyanordinaryexaminationoftheirrespectivevehicles;

24. Section53oftheCPAbarsNissanfrompleadingthatitwasunawareoftheDefect;

25. Nissan not only put the lives ofGroupmembers in danger, but also the safety of

-6-

otherdrivers,cyclistsandpedestrianswhosharetheroadswithGroupmembers;

Nissan’sFalseAdvertising:26. Furthermore,Nissan falselyadvertised itsNissanVersavehiclesasbeing “reliable”

(fiable) and offering drivers “security” and “safety” (sécurité), as it appears, forinstance, fromNissan’s French brochure titled “Versa 2010 de Nissan”, ApplicantdisclosingExhibitP-6:

27. Egregiously,Nissangoesasfarmarketingthesafetyandreliabilityofitscoilsprings

(“lesressorts”)inthesame2010brochure,ExhibitP-6,bystating:“Lesressorts.Unressort contrôle la vitesse et l’étenduedu chocaprèsunebossepourune conduiteplusdouceetplusstable,etdesviragesamorcésensécurité”,asappearsbelow:

-7-

28. Inits2008NissanVersabrochure,ApplicantdisclosingExhibitP-7,NissanmakesthesamefalserepresentationsconcerningthesafetyofferedtoGroupmembersby itscoilspringsbystating:“Agreatrelationshipwiththeroad ishandledbythoughtfultechnology, including a rebound spring inside each shock absorber. By helping tocontrol how fast andhow far the shock extends after hittinga bumporwhen thevehicle is leaning in a turn, you enjoy a smoother ride and flatter,more securecornering”,asitappearsfromtheimagebelow:

29. ThereisnodoubtthattherepresentationsmadebyNissanduringtheClassPeriod

concerningthesecurityofferedbyitscoilspringswerefalse,NissanhavingadmittedintheRecallNotice,ExhibitP-1,thatthefrontcoilspringsaredefectiveandactuallyincreasetheriskofacrash!

Nissan’sfailuretomentionanimportantfactinitsrepresentations(s.228CPA):30. Nissan committed prohibited business practices by its false or erroneous

representations concerning the quality of the Defective Vehicles, aswell as by itsomission to divulge an important fact on concerning the safety of the DefectiveVehicles(avehiclethatisnotsafetodriveisanimportantfact)forwhichitwas,orshouldhavebeen,awareofsinceMay8th,2006;

31. ThefactthatNissan“voluntarily”chosetoexecuteitsobligations2doesnotdepriveGroupmembersfromaskingthishonorableCourtforareductionoftheirveryownobligations, on the grounds that Nissan failed in its obligation to mention animportant fact in its representationsmade to consumers (pursuant to section228andparagraphcofsection272CPA);

2Itisimportanttonote,however,thatasofthefilingofthisaction,anumberofGroupmembershavenotreceivedthefirstRecallNoticefromNissan.Moreover,manyGroupmemberswhoreceivedthefirstRecallNoticeareyettoreceivethesecondletterinstructingthemonhowtoproceedwiththerepair.NissanisthusyettoexecuteitsobligationswithrespecttotheseGroupmembers.

-8-

32. Replacingthefrontsuspensioncoilsprings(yearslater)doesnotalonecompensatethedamagessufferedbyGroupmemberskeptinthedarkbyNissan,whofailedtomention an important fact to Groupmembers at the time of they acquired theirNissanVersas(yearmodels2007to2012);

33. Although,asprofessionalssellers,Nissanhas“presumedknowledge”oftheDefectsinceMay 8th, 2006, therewas ample information publicly available forNissan toobtain “actual knowledge”of theDefect, suchas consumercomplaints,describingthe suspension/steering issues, publicly recorded on the website of theNationalHighwayTrafficSafetyAdministration (the“NHTSA”),UnitedStatesDepartmentofTransportation (DOT), Applicant disclosing en liasse only one page of complaintsfrom theNHTSAwebsite (although there aremanymore) asExhibit P-8. The firstcomplaintfiledasearlyasJune27th,2007,describedthefollowing:

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 NISSAN VERSA. WHILE DRIVINGAPPROXIMATELY60-70MPH,THEVEHICLEVEERSTOTHELEFT.WHENDECELERATING,THEVEHICLEVEERSTOTHERIGHTANDFEELSASIFITWILLSPINOUT.THECONTACTHASSCHEDULEDANAPPOINTMENTATTHEDEALERFORJUNE29,2007.THEPOWERTRAINWASUNKNOWN.THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 30. THE CONSUMERSTATEDTOOKTHEVEHICLETOCERRITO'SANDTHEMECHANICTESTDROVE THE VEHICLE AND STATED THERE WAS NOTHING WRONGWITH THE VEHICLE. THE FOREMAN STATED IT COULD BE STEERINGBUT SINCE IT IS ELECTRIC AND DOES NOT HAVE POWER STEERING.SHE DOES NOT KNOW IF THAT IS THE REASON THE VEHICLE ISVEERING TO EITHER THE RIGHT OR LEFT. THE CONSUMER STATEDFEELSUNSAFEDRIVING THE VEHICLE AND PROVIDED EMAILS FROMOTHERCONSUMERSWITHTHESAMEDEFECT.THECONSUMERALSOPROVIDEDACOPYOFTHEREPAIRINVOICE.UPDATED07/31/07*TR

34. Anothercomplaint filedApril 29th, 2008, formingpartofExhibitP-8,describes thefollowing:

MY VEHICLE HAS BEEN IN THE SHOP REPEATEDLY FOR THE FRONTEND "POPPING" WHEN TURNING RIGHT. THE RIGHT STRUT ANDBUSHING, RACKANDPINION,AND SWAYBARHASBEENREPLACED.THISVEHICLESTILLHASAQUICK"POP"WHICHCANBEFELT INTHESTEERING WHEEL WHEN INITIALLY TURNING RIGHT. I FEARSOMETHINGMAYFAILWHENDRIVINGANDLOSSOFCONTROLMAYOCCUR.THISHASBEENANONGOINGPROBLEMTHATEVENNISSANCANNOTSEEMTOFIX.IHAVECOMPLAINEDTONISSANABOUTTHISISSUE AND AS YOU CAN SEE THEY HAVE REPLACED NUMEROUSPARTS.IDON'TKNOWWHATELSETODO.*TR

[ouremphasisunderlinedinbold].

-9-

35. As consumer complaints increased, Nissan further acknowledged the existence oftheDefect, issuingTSBNTB11-032,datedMarch 28th, 2011, toonly itsdealers, inwhichNissanimplementedrepairsinattempttofixtheDefect,ApplicantdisclosingExhibitP-9,whichstatesasfollows:

APPLIEDDATES:2007-2010:All2011vehiclesbuiltbeforeJanuary21,2011

IFYOUCONFIRM

Anoise (clunking,popping,orbumping)coming fromthe frontstrutassemblywhenthesteeringwheelisturned.

All2007-2009Versa:

1. Install the gray and green tubes listed in the Parts Informationsection onto the TOP and BOTTOM ends of both (LH and RH) frontsuspensioncoilsprings.

2. Replace both (LH and RH side) strut mounting bearings with theoneslistedinthePartsInformationsection.

All2010andApplicable2011Versa:

InstallthegrayandgreentubeslistedinthePartsInformationsectionontotheTOPandBOTTOMendsofboth(LHandRH)frontsuspensioncoilsprings.

[ouremphasisunderlinedinbold].

36. And yet, from 2006 (marketing date) untilNovember 2015 (Recall Date), NissancontinuedsellingDefectiveVehiclestoGroupmembers,whilefailingtomentionanimportantfactconcerningtheDefectiveVehicles;

37. Nissan had a legal obligation to mention this important fact (that the frontsuspensioncoilspringshaveinsufficientphosphorous/corrosioncoating),because:

a) asaprofessionalseller,NissanispresumedtobeawareoftheDefectsinceMay8th,2006(datedelaconnaissanceprésumée);

b) manycomplaints concerning theDefectiveVehicleswere filedandwereeasilyaccessibletoNissanontheNHTSAwebsiteasearlyasJune27th,2007;

c) Nissan acknowledged the Defect and implemented a fix therefor in its TSBNTB11-032,datedMarch28th,2011;

-10-

38. It is safe for Applicant to deduce thatNissanwas aware of the defect before thesending out of TSBNTB11-032, Exhibit P-9, to its dealers and thatNissan’s actualknowledge(connaissanceréelle)oftheDefectisatsomepointintimebetweenMay8th,2006,andMarch28th,2011;

39. DespitehavingpresumedandactualknowledgeoftheDefectbyearly2011atthelatest,NissanremainedsilentandfailedtoinformGroupmembersofanimportantfact, Applicant disclosing en liasse the French and English versions of the 2012NissanVersabrochureasExhibitP-10,extractsofwhicharereproducedbelow:

French(Canadian)Version:

English(American)Version:

-11-

40. Ironically,intheFrenchversionofthebrochureusedinQuebecandCanada,Nissanstates under the heading titled “Sécurité”: “SÉCURITÉ :Mieux vaut prévenir queguérir.C’estpourquoilaVersaesttrufféedetechnologiesdepointeoffertesdesérieafind’assurervotreprotection”,yetNissanfailedtopracticewhatitpreached;

41. Similarly, under the “Safety”heading in theEnglish version the2012NissanVersabrochure,Nissanstates:“SAFETY:Ourpriority is tohelp youavoidanaccident inthe first place. That’s why Versa comes standard with these advanced safetytechnologies”, when in reality Nissan was undeniably aware that the DefectincreasedGroupmembers’riskofacrashcausinginjuryand/orpropertydamage;

Nissan’sKnowledgeoftheDefectandremedies:42. Applicant respectfully submits that this honorable Court take into account the

presumeddateofMay 8th, 2006, basedon thewordingof the thirdparagraphofsection 53 of the CPA (for Group members protected by the CPA). As for GroupmembersthatarenotconsumersasdefinedbytheCPA,thedateoftheexistenceoftheDefectwillhavetobedefinedatalaterstageoftheseproceedings,basedonthewordingofarticle1729CCQ;

43. Asaresulttheforegoing,ApplicantandGroupmembers,whoareconsumerswithinthemeaningoftheCPAarejustifiedinclaimingcompensatorydamages,aswellaspunitivedamagesbasedonseveralsectionsoftheCPA,includingbutnotlimitedtosections37,38,41,53,228and272;

44. Pursuant to article 1728CCQ,Nissan is boundnot only to restore (or reduce) thepriceoftheDefectiveVehicles,butalsotomakereparationfortheinjurysufferedbyGroupmemberswhoaregovernedbythegeneralrulesofcivillaw;

45. GroupmemberswhopurchasedtheirvehiclesinprovincesotherthanQuebechavecausesofactionagainstNissan forbreachof impliedconditionsofmerchantabilityandfitnessforpurpose;

B) THEPARTIES

46. TheApplicantisabuyerandconsumerwithinthemeaningoftheCCQ;

47. TheApplicant is a consumerwithin themeaningof theCPA, aswell aswithin theconsumerprotectionandtradepracticelegislationinotherCanadianjurisdictions;

48. TheApplicantisabuyerwithinthemeaningoftheSaleofGoodslegislationinforceinCanadianprovincesoutsideofQuebec;

-12-

49. Defendant Nissan Canada Inc. (hereinafter “Nissan Canada”) is a Canadiancorporation with its head office in Mississauga, Ontario. It is a subsidiary ofDefendantsNissanNorthAmerica, Inc. andNissanMotorCo., Ltd. thatengages inthebusinessof sellingautomobilesandautomobilepartsatwholesale throughoutCanada, includingwithin theprovinceofQuebec, thewholeasappearsmore fullyfrom copy of an extract from the enterprise’s information statement from theQuebecenterpriseregister(CIDREQ),disclosedhereinasExhibitP-11;

50. NissanCanadahasanelecteddomicileat1PlaceVilleMarie37th Floor,Montreal,Quebec,H3B3P4,asitappearsfromExhibitP-11;

51. Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. (hereinafter “Nissan North America”) is anAmerican corporationwith its headoffice in the stateof Tennessee. It is aparentcompanyofDefendantNissanCanadaandasubsidiaryofDefendantNissanMotorCo.,Ltd.;

52. Nissan North America’s operations consist of automotive styling, engineering,consumer and corporate financing, sales and marketing and distribution andmanufacturingofautomobiles;

53. Defendant Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nissan Motor”) is a Japanesecorporation with its head office in Kanagawa, Japan. It is a parent company ofDefendantNissanCanadaanditisJapan’ssecond-largestautomotivecompany.

54. Nissan Motor manufactures, distributes, services, and sells automobiles throughindependent retailers, outlets, and authorized dealerships worldwide, including inCanada,undertheNissan,Infiniti,andDatsunbrands;

55. TheDefendantsare“professionalsellers”withinthemeaningofarticle1729CCQ;

56. The Defendants are “merchants” within themeaning of the CPA, and operate anenterprisewithinthemeaningoftheCCQ,andtheiractivitiesaregovernedbytheselegislation,amongothers;

57. The Defendants are also “suppliers” under the consumer protection and tradepracticelegislationinotherCanadianjurisdictions,aswellas“sellers”undertheSaleof Goods legislation in force in Canadian provinces outside of Quebec and theiractivitiesaregovernedbytheselegislation,amongothers;

58. Given the close ties between the Nissan Defendants and considering that theirobligationswerecontractedfor theoperationofanenterprise, theyarepresumedsolidarilyliablefortheactsandomissionsoftheother;

-13-

II. CONDITIONS REQUIRED TO AUTHORIZE THIS CLASS ACTION AND TO APPOINT THESTATUSOFREPRESENTATIVEPLAINTIFF(SECTION575C.C.P.):

1) Thefactsallegedappeartojustifytheconclusionssought:

59. On July 31st, 2013, Applicant purchased a 2009 Nissan Versa (VIN:3N1BC13E09L488317) fromCITÉNISSAN, in the district ofMontreal, as it appearsfromtheContractofSale(“Contratdevente”),ApplicantdisclosingExhibitP-12;

60. ApplicantpurchasedthisNissanVersabecausehewaslookingforavehiclethatwassafeandwithinhisbudget;

61. Applicant was assured by his sales representative that the Nissan Versa he waspurchasingwasasafevehicle;hethenagreedtopurchasethevehiclefor$10,922.63includingsalestaxes,asitappearsfromExhibitP-12;

62. The representations made by the sales representative concerning the vehicle’ssafetywereconsistentwiththosemadebyNissaninitsmarketingmaterials,suchastheannualNissanVersabrochuresfrom2007to2012(seeExhibitsP-6,P-7andP-10foranexample);

63. Applicantagreedtopayanadditional$1,782.11topurchaseNissan’sPlatinumPSP(Programme sécuritaire prolongé) which offered him an additional warranty for 4yearsor40,000kilometers,aswellaspeaceofmind;

64. Applicantpaidatotalof$12,704.74 forhisNissanVersa2009model,as itappearsfromExhibitP-12;

65. At the timeof sale,Applicantwasunder the impression thathewaspurchasingavehicle that was free of any production issues, as well as any design and/ormanufacturingdefects;

66. Unbeknownst tohim,heoverpaid for thepurchaseprice,as theDefectiveVehiclewasinfactsufferingfromaseriousDefect;

67. TheApplicantwas entitled to expect, and rightly expected, thatNissan guaranteethequalityoftheproductsitdesignsandmarkets;

68. Applicant discovered the existence of the Defect sometime around themonth ofNovember 2015, when he received the Recall Notice from Nissan, Exhibit P-1,informinghimoftheDefectinhisvehicle;

69. AfterreceivingtheRecallNoticeinNovember2015,ApplicantwasconcernedforhissafetywhiledrivinghisNissanVersaandbegandrivingslowerandmorecautiously;

-14-

70. GiventheseriousnessofthelanguageintheRecallNotice(“increasingtheriskofacrash”),Applicantwaslegitimatelyworriedthathecouldbeinvolvedinanaccidentatanygiventime;

71. Consequently, Applicant not only suffered a loss of use after the recall, but alsobefore the recall because his Nissan Versa never afforded him the security itwassupposedtoandwhichherelieduponwhenpurchasingthevehicle;

72. Inreality,wheneverhedrovehisNissanVersa,Applicantwasalwaysatanincreasedriskofacrashcausinginjuryand/orpropertydamagetohimselfandtoothers;

73. AfterreceivingtheRecallNoticefromNissan,ExhibitP-1,ApplicantwaitedtoreceiveasecondletterfromNissanbyJanuary2016,becausetheletterstatedthat“NissanexpectspartstobeavailablebytheendofJanuaryandwillsendyouasecondletteraskingyoutobringyourvehicletoaNissandealerfortheremedyatthattime”;

74. Nissannever sent this second letter to Applicant, despite assuring him that theywoulddoso“bytheendofJanuary(2016)”;

75. Infact,Applicantonlydiscoveredtheextentofthedamagetohisvehicle’sfrontcoilspringsonJune16th,2016,whenhebroughthisvehicletoaCanadianTiremechanicin Montreal to replace his winter tires for summer tires, as it appears from theCanadian Tire invoice which states: “FRONT COIL SPRINGS BROKEN”, ApplicantdisclosingExhibitP-13;

76. On June 16th, 2016, upon receipt of the information from Canadian Tire, theApplicant immediately phoned his nearest Nissan dealership at 3500 Jean-TalonstreetWest(thedealershipnowdoesbusinessunderthename“NissanGabrielJean-Talon”);

77. The Applicant explained the situation to the service representative at the Nissandealershipandaskedwhyheneverreceivedasecondletter;

78. Applicantwas initially toldby the service representativeatNissan that the secondlettershavenotgoneoutyetandthathewouldhavetowaituntilSeptember2016toscheduleanappointmenttorepairhisfrontcoilsprings;

79. Dismayed by this response, Applicant gave the representative his Recall Noticenumber and informed her that Canadian Tire had already confirmed that his coilspringswerebroken;

80. It was the Applicant who actually had to explain to the service representative atNissanthesignificantdangersofdrivingavehiclewithbrokencoilsprings;

-15-

81. As a result of Applicant’s plea, the service representative at Nissan gave him anappointmentforJune20th,2016;

82. On June 20th, 2016, the Applicant brought his vehicle to the Nissan dealership at3500 Jean-TalonWest for his appointment thatwas scheduled for 10:00 a.m. andwasaskedtoleavehisvehicleatthedealershipuntiltherepairswerecompleted;

83. Hewasnotofferedareplacementvehiclefortheday,butwasinsteadbroughtbacktoalocationclosetohisdomicilebythedealership’sshuttleservice;

84. Having not received any news throughout the day, Applicant called the Nissandealershiparound4:30p.m.andwastoldthathisvehiclecouldbepickedupat5:00p.m.,butthattheshuttleservicewasnotavailabletopickhimup;

85. Applicant was forced to make his own way to the Nissan dealership which isapproximately6kilometersfromhisdomicile;

86. Inall,Applicantwaswithouthisvehiclefor7hoursonJune20th,2016,andhadtotrouble a relative to drive him fromhis domicile to theNissandealership at 3500Jean-TalonWestsothathecanrecuperatehisvehicle (it is likely thatotherGroupmembersmayhaveincurredrentalvehiclefeesortransportationcosts);

87. The Applicant’s vehiclewas repaired, as it appears from theNissan invoice datedJune20th,2016,ApplicantdisclosingExhibitP-14;

88. Consequently,fromJuly31st,2013,untilJune20th,2016,NissancausedApplicanttodrivehis vehicle that,due toNissan’sownproduction issue,had front coil springswith insufficient corrosion coating and increased the risk of the Applicant beinginvolvedinamotorvehicleaccident;

89. Applicant has suffered ascertainable loss as a result of Nissan’s omissions and/ormisrepresentationsassociatedwiththeproduction issue, including,butnot limitedto: (i) overpayment for the vehicle itself; (ii) substantially lower resale valuesassociatedwith his vehicle because the problemswith the front coil springs havebecomeparticularlyknownintheindustry;(iii)moraldamages;and(iv)troubleandinconvenience;

90. HadApplicantbeenawareoftheDefect,hewouldhavelikelyneverpurchasedthe2009NissanVersa(andcertainlynotpaidsuchahighprice);

91. Applicant’sdamagesareadirectandproximateresultofNissan’smisconduct;

92. In consequence of the foregoing, theApplicant is justified in claiming damages asdetailedinthefollowingparagraphs;

-16-

(i) Applicant’sclaimfora reductionofhisobligationduetoNissan’s failureof itsobligationtoinform(section228andparagraphcofsection272CPA)

93. Applicant purchased his vehicle from Cité Nissan (7228821 Canada Inc.), anauthorizeddealerofNissanonthedateofhispurchase;

94. When Applicant purchased his vehicle on July 31st, 2013, Nissan already hadpresumed and actual knowledge of the Defect (see paragraphs 33, 37 and 38herein);

95. NissanadmitsthatApplicant’sNissanVersa2009wasdefective,ExhibitP-1;

96. ThefactthatthefrontsuspensioncoilspringsonApplicant’sNissanVersa2009mayhave beenmanufacturedwith an inadequate phosphorous/corrosion coating is inand of itself an important fact, and evenmore so because the Applicant lives inQuebec,whereroadsaltinthewinteriscommonlyused;

97. HadApplicantbeenmadeawareofthisimportantfactinatimelyfashion,hewouldhave either never purchased this vehicle, or would have certainly contracted ondifferentterms(forinstance,notpaysuchahighprice);

98. Insum,Nissan’sreticence,withrespecttoanimportantfactthatitwaswellawareof,influencedtheApplicanttopurchaseavehicle(andanadditionalwarranty)thathewouldhavelikelyneverpurchased;

99. Quebecconsumerlawisamatterofprotectivepublicorder;

100. Nissanoperates in theprovinceofQuebecbyunlawfullyderogating from theCPAandisthereforeinviolationofsection228CPA;

101. Consequently,Applicant is justified indemanding thathisobligations flowing fromhiscontractofsalebereduced,aswellaspunitivedamages;

(ii) Applicant’sclaimforpunitivedamages(art.228and272CPA)

102. NissanDefectiveVehiclesinquestionweresupposedlymanufacturedinMexico;

103. NissanshouldnothavecutcornerstosaveoncostsofimportantcomponentsoftheDefective Vehicles, all the while putting the lives of the Applicant and Groupmembersatrisk;

104. NissanispresumedtobeawareoftheDefectsinceMay8th,2006,whilecomplaintswerepubliclyaccessibleontheNHTSAwebsitesinceJune2007;

-17-

105. Nissan formally acknowledges the Defect on March 28th, 2011, when it sent TSBNTB11-032toitsdealers,ExhibitP-9;

106. Despitetheabove,NissancontinuedmarketingandsellingtheDefectiveVehiclesassafeandsecure,shockinglyevenboastingaboutthesafetyoftheircoilsprings(seepublicityatExhibitsP-6,P-7andP-10),advertising thatdriversenjoy“moresecurecornering”,wheninreality,theoppositeistrue;

107. AnOctober2015articletitled:“Oh,Snap:218,000NissanVersaModelsRecalledforBrokenCoilSprings”,writtenbyautomotivejournalistCliffordAtiyeh,shedslightsonNissan’s attempt to elude its obligations as a manufacturer, Applicant disclosingExhibitP-15:

On the 2007-2012 Versa, the springs can crack due to a lack ofphosphorouscoatingorbitschippingoffwhenthespringcompresses,during which road salts and other corrosives may eat away at themetal. The springs have been known to snap randomly withoutwarning, sometimes taking tires and brake lines down with them.Nissanhasfoundtheproblemonatleast356carsandNHTSA,sinceopening an investigation in May, found at least 93 ownercomplaints. In response, the company tried convincing the agencythat the sudden noise and ride height change would be enoughwarningforthecustomertobringinthecarforserviceandthatflattiresdidn’tposeasafetyrisk.

[ouremphasisunderlinedinbold].

108. This lack of accountability on the part of Nissan is in and of itself an importantreasonforthisCourtenforcemeasuresthatwillpunishNissan,aswellasdeteranddissuade other entities from engaging in similar reprehensible conduct to thedetrimentofQuebecandCanadianconsumers;

109. The reality is that the Nissan’s profitmargins –which is in thebillions of dollarsduring the Class Period – is being adversely effected now that they are forced torecallallDefectiveVehicles;

110. Worse,evenasoftheeveofthefilingthepresentaction,ApplicanthasconfirmationbyseveralGroupmembersthatnotallNissanVersaownershavereceivedthefirstRecallNotice;

111. Even after mailing out the Recall Notice in November 2015, Nissan never sent asecond letter “by the end of January” as it committed to do in the Recall Notice,ExhibitP-1;

112. It was only by chance that Applicant discovered that his front coil springs were

-18-

brokenandrequiredurgentrepair,whenhebroughthisvehicletoCanadianTireforatirechangeonJune16th,2016;

113. After calling an authorized Nissan dealer at 3500 Jean-TalonWest, Applicant wasinitiallytoldthathewouldhavetowaituntilSeptember2016foranappointmenttoreplacehisfrontcoilsprings(10monthsafterreceivingtheRecallNotice!);

114. ApplicantwonderswhetherNissanwouldhaveeversenthimthesecondletter;

115. Nissan’s conduct in the manufacturing of the Defective Vehicles, as well as itshandlingoftherepairsoftheDefect,isreprehensibleandundesirable;

116. Vehicleowners shouldneverhave towaitmore than10months (in realityNissanwasawareoftheDefectfor,attheleast,almost5yearsbeforetherecall)toreceiveinstructions on how to repair a vehicle that is unsafe to drive and increases thelikelihoodofcaraccident,aswellasmaterialandcorporalinjuriestothedriverandtobystanders;

117. Thepunitivedamagesprovidedfor insection272CPAhaveapreventiveobjective,thatis,todiscouragetherepetitionofsuchundesirableconduct;

118. NotonlydidNissanviolatetheCPAbyfailingtoinformtheApplicantofanimportantfact,theyintentionallycontinuedadvertisingtheVersaas“safe”andadvertisedthattheir “priority is to help you avoid an accident in the first place” (see the 2012NissanVersaEnglishbrochure,ExhibitP-10);

119. Nissan’sviolationswereintentional,malicious,vexatious,anddangerous;

120. Nissan demonstrated through its behavior that it was more concerned about itsbottomlinethanaboutthesafetyofGroupmembersandothersthattheysharetheroadswith;

121. ConsideringthewholeofNissan’sconductatthetimeofandaftertheviolations,therecordshowsthatNissan:

a) displayedignorancefromMay8th,2006,untilatleastNovemberof2015;

b) was careless by not sending out the second letter by January 2016 aspromised(orevertoApplicantandothers);

c) was negligent overall with respect to its obligations and consumers’ rightsundertheCPA(fromthedateofconceptionoftheDefectiveVehiclesintheirMexicanfactoriesin2006untilthepresentdatewheresecondletters–andsometimesfirstletters–havenotyetbeensent);

-19-

122. Inthesecircumstances,Applicant’sclaimforpunitivedamagesjustified;

(iii) Applicant’sclaimforareductionofhisobligationsduetothedesignDefect(art.

1726,1728,1729and1730CCQ):

123. Nissanisaprofessionalseller;

124. ThefrontsuspensioncoilspringsontheApplicant’s2009NissanVersadeterioratedprematurely incomparisonwithothervehicles (Nissanadmits in theRecallNotice,ExhibitP-1,thatApplicant’sfrontcoilspringshaveinsufficientcorrosioncoatingduetoaproductionissue);

125. TheApplicantusedthevehicleproperly(hedrovethevehicleonroads);

126. Under thegeneral rulesofcivil law, thedefect ispresumedtohaveexistedat thetimeofsale(July31st,2013inApplicant’scase);

127. NissanisthuspresumedtobeawareofthelatentdefectsinceJuly31st,2013;

128. Nissanisboundnotonlytorestore(orreduce)the$12,704.74pricewhichApplicantpaid,butalsotomakereparationfortheinjurysufferedbytheApplicant;

(iv) Applicant’sclaimforareductionofhisobligationsduetoerrorinducedbyfraud

(art.1399-1401and1407CCQ):

129. Applicant’s consent was vitiated by error induced by fraud on the part of Nissan(because fraud may result from silence or concealment pursuant to article 1401CCQ);

130. Nissan concealed or was silent concerning an essential element of the contract,relating to the safety of the Defective Vehicles, which was determinant to theApplicant’sconsent;

131. ButforNissan’ssilenceorconcealmentconcerningtheDefect,Applicantwouldhaveneverpurchasedthevehicleorpaidsuchahighprice;

132. Consequently, Applicant has the right to apply for a reduction of his obligationequivalent to thedamageshewouldbe justified in claiming (in this case inlcudingthedifferencebetweenhispurchasepriceof$12,704.74andtheamounthewouldhave paid had Nissan not concealed the essential element, as well as the loss ofvaluetohisvehicle,amongotherdamagesreferredtoherein);

-20-

2) TheclaimsofthemembersoftheGroupraiseidentical,similarorrelatedissuesoflaworfact:

133. Nissan’s Defective Vehicles that were sold/leased in Canada contain front coilsprings thathave insufficient corrosioncoating,whichcan result in fractureof thesprings. A fractured spring can damage the front tires and aversely affect thehandlingofthevehicle,increasingtheriskofacrash;

134. In light of the foregoing, the questions of fact and law raised and the recoursesoughtbythisApplicationareverysimilarwithrespecttoeachGroupmember;

135. Every Group member purchased or leased a Defective Vehicle from Nissan (asadmittedbyDefendantNissanCanadaintheRecallNotice,ExhibitP-1);

136. Nissan failed to mention an important fact in its representation to all Groupmembers who are consumers within the meaning of the CPA (which it hadknowledge of from some point betweenMay 8th, 2006 to March 28th, 2011, theexactdatetobedeterminedbythishonourableCourt);

137. Nissan remained silent and/or concealed information concerning an essentialelementof thecontract fromallotherGroupmembers, includingnaturalpersons,legal persons established for a private interest, partnerships and associations orothergroupsnotendowedwithjuridicalpersonality;

138. AllGroupmembersareentitledtoexpect thatNissanguaranteethequalityof theproductsitdesignsandmarkets,andthatNissaninformthepublicofimportantfactsconcerningthevehiclesitsells;

139. Consequently,allGroupmembersoverpaidNissanwhentheypurchased/leasedoneofNissan’sDefectiveVehicles;

140. ByreasonofNissan’sunlawfulconduct,ApplicantandmembersoftheGrouphavesuffereddamages,whichtheymaycollectivelyclaimagainstNissan;

141. Each member of the Group is justified in claiming at least one or more of thefollowingasdamages:

• Diminishedvalueof theDefectiveVehicles in termsofanoverpayment for thepurchasepriceorleasepayments;

• LowerresalevalueoftheDefectiveVehicles;

• LossofuseoftheDefectiveVehiclesandexpendituresforrentalvehicles;

• Troubleandinconvenience;

-21-

• Moraldamages;and

• Punitivedamages;

142. All of these damages to theGroupMembers are a direct and proximate result ofNissan’smisconduct;

143. The claims of every Group member are founded on very similar facts to theApplicant’sclaim;

144. Individualquestions,ifany,palebycomparisontothenumerouscommonquestionsthataresignificanttotheoutcomeofthepresentApplication;

145. The damages sustained by the Group members flow, in each instance, from acommonnucleusofoperativefacts,namely,Nissan’smisconductwithrespecttothemanufacturingandsubsequenthandlingoftheDefectiveVehicles;

146. TherecoursesoftheGroupmembersraiseidentical,similarorrelatedquestionsoffactorlaw,namely:

a) DotheDefectiveVehiclessufferfromfrontcoilspringdefects?

b) DidNissanknoworshouldithaveknownaboutthecoilspringdefects,and,ifso,sincewhen?

c) DidNissansendthefirstRecallNoticetoallaffectedGroupmembers?

d) AftersendingthefirstRecallNoticeinNovemberof2015,didNissansendGroupmembersasecond letteraspromised in theRecallNotice? Ifnot,why? Ifyes,when?

e) DidNissannegligentlyperformitsdutiestoproperlydesign,manufacture,test,distribute, deliver, supply, inspect, market, sell and/or lease non-defectivevehicles?

f) Did Nissan misrepresent the Defective Vehicles as safe or fail to adequatelydisclosetoconsumersthetruedefectivenatureofthe2007-2012NissanVersas?

g) DidNissanfailitsobligationundersection228CPAtoinformGroupmembersofanimportantfact?

h) DidNissanconcealand/orremainsilentconcerninganessentialelementofthecontract(i.e.safety)?

i) IsNissanresponsible forall relateddamages (including,butnot limitedto: the

-22-

diminishedvalueof theDefectiveVehicles in termsofanoverpayment for thepurchase price or lease payments, the lower resale value of the DefectiveVehicles, the loss of use of the Vehicles and expenditures for rental vehicles,moraldamagesandtroubleandinconveniencetoGroupmembersasaresultoftheproblemsassociatedwiththeDefectiveVehicles)andinwhatamount?

j) Are theGroupmembers and theApplicant entitled to a declaratory judgmentstatingthatthefrontcoilspringsintheDefectiveVehiclesaredefectiveand/ornotmerchantable?

k) ShouldaninjunctiveremedybeorderedtoforceNissantonotify,recall,repairand/or replace the defective front coil springs in Group members 2007-2012NissanVersas,whichhavenotyetbeenrecalled,freeofcharge?

l) Should an injunctive remedy be ordered to force Nissan to send the secondletter to Group members who received the Recall Notice, but who neverreceivedthesecondletter?

m) Is Nissan responsible to pay punitive damages to classmembers and, if so, inwhatamount?

3) Thecompositionofthegroup:

147. ThecompositionoftheGroupmakes itdifficultor impracticabletoapplytherulesfor mandates to take part in judicial proceedings on behalf of others or forconsolidationofproceedings;

148. According to Transport Canada, Exhibit P-2, 110,604 Nissan Versa vehicles (yearmodels 2007-2012) have been recalled in Canada to date due to insufficientcorrosion coating increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or propertydamage;

149. Thenumberof persons included in theGroup couldbeover 100,000 if a nationalclassisauthorized,orinthetensofthousandsintheprovinceofQuebecalone;

150. ThenamesandaddressesofallpersonsincludedintheGrouparenotknowntotheApplicant,however,manycouldbeobtainedbyNissan;

151. Groupmembers are very numerous and aredispersed across theprovince, acrossCanadaandelsewhere;

152. These factsdemonstrate that itwouldbe impractical, ifnot impossible, tocontacteachandeveryGroupmembertoobtainmandatesandtojointheminoneaction;

-23-

153. Inthesecircumstances,aclassactionistheonlyappropriateprocedureforallofthemembersoftheGrouptoeffectivelypursuetheirrespectiverightsandhaveaccesstojusticewithoutoverburdeningthecourtsystem;

4) Theclassmemberappointedasrepresentativeplaintiffisinapositiontoproperly

representtheclassmembers:

154. Applicantrequeststhathebeappointedthestatusofrepresentativeplaintiff;

155. ApplicantisamemberoftheGroup;

156. ApplicantwasflabbergastedtolearnthatacompanyofNissan’sstaturewouldkeepits customers in the dark about important facts, such as vehicle and passengersafety;

157. Applicant feels thatNissanshouldbeheldaccountable for theirmisconductand istakingthisactionsothatheandtheGroupmemberscanrecoversumsoverpaidfortheirDefectiveVehicles(amongstotherdamages);

158. Applicant also feels that an example should bemade of howNissan handled thissituation,astodissuadeanddeterotherautomotivecompaniesfromactingwiththesamecarelessnessandnegligencewhenitcomestovehicleandpassengersafety;

159. Havingneverreceivedasecondletterhimself,Applicantwantsto lendhisvoicetoprotectthesafetyofotherGroupmembers(and innocentbystandersontheroad)and believes that the filing of this action will have the additional effect of: (i)encouraging Nissan to contact all affected Group members and repair the safetyDefect sooner, rather than later; and (ii) raising awareness for otherNissanVersaowners(yearmodels2007-2012)whoneverreceivedtheRecallNoticetobeginwith(Applicant is awareof twoNissanVersaowners - 2009and2012models - yet toreceivetheRecallNotice);

160. As for identifying other Group members, the Applicant draws certain inferencesfromthesituation,andthisbasedontheinformationprovidedbyTransportCanada,ExhibitP-2, thatmore than110,604vehicleshavebeenrecalled todate.Applicantrealizes that by all accounts, there are is an important numberof consumers thatfind themselves inan identical situation, and that itwouldn’tbeuseful forhim toattempttoidentifythemgiventheirsheernumber;

161. Applicant is ready and available to manage and direct the present action in theinterestofthemembersoftheGroupthathewishestorepresentandisdeterminedto leadthepresentdossieruntilafinalresolutionofthematter,thewholeforthebenefit of the Group, as well as, to dedicate the time necessary for the present

-24-

actionandtocollaboratewithhisattorneys;

162. Applicanthasgiventhemandatetohisattorneystoobtainallrelevantinformationwith respect to the present action and intends to keep informed of alldevelopments;

163. Applicant has the capacity and interest to fairly and adequately protect andrepresenttheinterestofthemembersoftheGroup;

164. Applicant,withtheassistanceofhisattorneys,isreadyandavailabletodedicatethetimenecessaryforthisactionandtocollaboratewithothermembersoftheGroupandtokeeptheminformed;

165. Applicantisingoodfaithandhasinstitutedthisactionforthesolepurposeofhavinghisrights,aswellastherightsofotherGroupmembers,recognizedandprotectedso that theymay be compensated for the damages that they have suffered as aconsequenceofNissan’smisconduct;

166. Applicantunderstandsthenatureoftheaction;

167. Applicant’sinterestsarenotantagonistictothoseofothermembersoftheGroup;

168. Applicant’s interest and competence are such that the present class action couldproceedfairly;

III. NATIONALCLASS(SUBSIDIARILYAPROVINCIALCLASS)

169. Applicantwishestorepresentanationalclass(subsidiarilyaprovincialclass),forthefollowingreasons:

a) A multitude of actions instituted in different jurisdictions, both territorial(different provinces) and judicial districts (same province), risks havingcontradictory judgments on questions of fact and law that are similar orrelatedtoallmembersoftheGroup;

b) Inaddition,giventhecostsandrisksinherentinanactionbeforethecourts,many people will hesitate to institute an individual action against Nissan.EveniftheGroupmembersthemselvescouldaffordsuchindividuallitigation,the court system could not as it would be overloaded. Further, individuallitigationofthefactualandlegalissuesraisedbyNissan’smisconductwouldincreasedelayandexpensetoallpartiesandtothecourtsystem;

-25-

c) The facts and legal issues of the present action support a proportionalapproach to class action standing that economizes judicial resources andenhancesaccesstojustice;

d) A searchon theNational ClassActionRegistry confirms that noother classactionshavebeeninstitutedtodateinanyotherCanadianprovinceonbehalfoftheGroupmembers;

e) The principal purposes of most class actions for damages are: (i)compensation for victims; (ii) efficiency for victims; and (iii) the enhanceddeterrence arising from the availability of class actions. If this Courtauthorizesanationalclass,Nissanwouldultimately face liability towardsallvictims of their misconduct, which would deter Nissan and others fromengaginginsimilarreprehensibleconduct;

IV. DAMAGES

170. DuringtheClassPeriodNissanhasgeneratedbillionsofdollarswhile intentionallychoosing to ignore the law in Quebec as well as in other Canadian provinces, bycuttingcornersoncosts(resultingintheproductionofDefectiveVehicles),failingtoinformGroupmembersofanimportantfactandneglectingtorepairtheDefectiveVehiclesinatimelyfashion;

171. Nissan’smisconductisunconscionableandtothedetrimentofvulnerableCanadianconsumers;

172. Nissan’smisconductissomalicious,oppressiveandhigh-handedthatitoffendsanysenseofdecency;

173. Consequently, Nissan has breached several obligations imposed on them byconsumer protection and trade practice legislation inQuebec and other Canadianprovinces,including:

a) Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act, including sections 37, 38, 41, 53, 215,219, 220(a), 221(g), and 228, thus rendering sections 253 and/or 272applicable;

b) The Civil Code of Quebec, including sections 1399-1401, 1407, 1726, 1728,1729,1730;

c) SaleofGoods legislation in force inCanadianprovincesoutsideofQuebec,notably the sections providing causes of action for breach of impliedconditionsofmerchantabilityandfitnessforpurpose;

-26-

d) Consumer protection and trade practice legislation in the other Canadianjurisdictions, notably the sections concerning false,misleading or deceptiverepresentations;

174. Moreover, Nissan failed in its obligation and duty to act in good faith and withhonestyintheirrepresentationsandintheperformanceoftheirobligations;

175. Inlightoftheforegoing,thefollowingdamagesmaybeclaimedsolidarilyagainsttheDefendants:

a) compensatorydamages, inanamount tobedetermined,onaccountof thedamagessuffered;and

b) punitive damages, in an amount to be determined, for the breach ofobligations imposed on Nissan pursuant to section 272 CPA as well as theconsumer protection and trade practice legislation in the other Canadianjurisdictions;

V. NATUREOFTHEACTIONANDCONCLUSIONSSOUGHT

176. Theaction that theApplicantwishes to instituteonbehalfof themembersof theGroupisanactionindamages,injunctivereliefanddeclaratoryjudgment;

177. TheconclusionsthattheApplicantwishestointroducebywayofanApplicationtoinstituteproceedingsare:

GRANT Plaintiff’s action against Defendants on behalf of all the members of theGroup;

DECLARE that the front coil springs in theDefectiveVehicles are defective and/ornotmerchantable;

ORDERtheDefendantstorecallallDefectiveVehiclesequippedwithdefectivefrontcoil springs, which have not yet been recalled, and to repair and/or replace saiddefectfreeofcharge;

DECLAREtheDefendantssolidarilyliableforthedamagessufferedbytheApplicantandeachofthemembersoftheGroup;

CONDEMN the Defendants to pay to each member of the Group a sum to bedetermined in compensation of the damages suffered, and ORDER collectiverecoveryofthesesums;

CONDEMN the Defendants to pay to each of themembers of theGroup punitive

-27-

damages, inanamount tobedetermined,andORDER collectiverecoveryof thesesums;

CONDEMN the Defendants to pay interest and the additional indemnity on theabovesumsaccordingtolawfromthedateofserviceoftheApplicationtoauthorizeaclassaction;

ORDERtheDefendantstodepositintheofficeofthisCourtthetotalityofthesumswhichformspartofthecollectiverecovery,withinterestandcosts;

ORDER that the claims of individual Group members be the object of collectiveliquidationiftheproofpermitsandalternately,byindividualliquidation;

CONDEMNtheDefendantstobearthecostsofthepresentactionincludingthecostof notices, the cost of management of claims and the costs of experts, if any,including the costs of experts required to establish the amount of the collectiverecoveryorders;

RENDERanyotherorderthatthisHonourableCourtshalldetermine;

178. TheinterestsofjusticefavourthatthisApplicationbegrantedinaccordancewithitsconclusions;

VI. JURISDICTION

179. TheApplicantsuggeststhatthisclassactionbeexercisedbeforetheSuperiorCourtoftheprovinceofQuebec,inthedistrictofMontreal,forthefollowingreasons:

a) There exists a real and substantial connection between the province ofQuebecandthedamagessufferedbyApplicantandGroupmembers;

b) TheApplicantpurchasedhisvehiclefromanauthorizedNissandealerinthedistrictofMontreal;

c) AgreatnumberofthemembersoftheGroup,includingtheApplicant,resideinthedistrictofMontreal;

d) Nissanconductsbusiness thedistrictofMontreal, via itsauthorizeddealersandservicelocations;

e) TheApplicant’sattorneyspracticetheirprofessioninthedistrictofMontreal;

-28-

FORTHESEREASONS,MAYITPLEASETHECOURT:

GRANTthepresentapplication;

AUTHORIZE thebringingofaclassaction intheformofanApplicationto instituteproceedingsindamages;

APPOINTtheApplicantthestatusofrepresentativeplaintiffofthepersonsincludedintheGrouphereindescribedas:

Group:

All natural persons, legal persons established for a privateinterest, partnerships and associations or other groups notendowed with juridical personality, resident in Canada(subsidiarilyQuebec),who,anytimebetweenMay8th,2006toNovember 30th, 2015 (the “Class Period”), purchased and/orleasedoneormoreoftheNissanVersaModelYears2007-2012(the “Defective Vehicles”)manufactured,distributed, supplied,wholesaledand/orimportedbyNissan;

(hereinafterreferredtoasthe“Group”)

oranyothergrouptobedeterminedbytheCourt;

IDENTIFY the principle questions of fact and law to be treated collectively as thefollowing:

a) DotheDefectiveVehiclessufferfromfrontcoilspringdefects?

b) DidNissanknoworshouldithaveknownaboutthecoilspringdefects,and,ifso,sincewhen?

c) DidNissansendthefirstRecallNoticetoallaffectedGroupmembers?

d) Aftersendingthe firstRecallNotice inNovemberof2015,didNissansendGroupmembersasecondletteraspromisedintheRecallNotice?Ifnot,why?Ifyes,when?

e) Did Nissan negligently perform its duties to properly design,manufacture, test, distribute, deliver, supply, inspect, market, selland/orleasenon-defectivevehicles?

f) Did Nissan misrepresent the Defective Vehicles as safe or fail toadequately disclose to consumers the true defective nature of the

-29-

2007-2012NissanVersas?

g) DidNissan fail its obligation under section 228 CPA to informGroupmembersofanimportantfact?

h) Did Nissan conceal and/or remain silent concerning an essentialelementofthecontract(i.e.safety)?

i) IsNissanresponsibleforallrelateddamages(including,butnotlimitedto: the diminished value of the Defective Vehicles in terms of anoverpayment for the purchase price or lease payments, the lowerresalevalueof theDefectiveVehicles, the lossofuseof theVehiclesandexpenditures forrentalvehicles,moraldamagesandtroubleandinconvenience to Group members as a result of the problemsassociatedwiththeDefectiveVehicles)andinwhatamount?

j) Are the Groupmembers and the Applicant entitled to a declaratoryjudgment stating that the front coil springs in theDefectiveVehiclesaredefectiveand/ornotmerchantable?

k) Should an injunctive remedy be ordered to force Nissan to notify,recall, repair and/or replace thedefective front coil springs inGroupmembers2007-2012NissanVersas,whichhavenotyetbeenrecalled,freeofcharge?

l) Should an injunctive remedy be ordered to forceNissan to send thesecond letter toGroupmemberswhoreceivedtheRecallNotice,butwhoneverreceivedthesecondletter?

m) IsNissanresponsibletopaypunitivedamagestoclassmembersand,ifso,inwhatamount?

IDENTIFY the conclusions sought by the class action to be instituted as being thefollowing:

GRANTPlaintiff’sactionagainstDefendantsonbehalfofall themembersoftheGroup;

DECLARE that the front coil springs in the Defective Vehicles are defectiveand/ornotmerchantable;

ORDER the Defendants to recall all Defective Vehicles equipped withdefective frontcoil springs,whichhavenotyetbeen recalled,and to repairand/orreplacesaiddefectfreeofcharge;

-30-

DECLARE the Defendants solidarily liable for the damages suffered by theApplicantandeachofthemembersoftheGroup;

CONDEMNtheDefendantstopaytoeachmemberoftheGroupasumtobedeterminedincompensationofthedamagessuffered,andORDERcollectiverecoveryofthesesums;

CONDEMN the Defendants to pay to each of the members of the Grouppunitive damages, in an amount to be determined, and ORDER collectiverecoveryofthesesums;

CONDEMN theDefendants to pay interest and the additional indemnity ontheabovesumsaccordingtolawfromthedateofserviceoftheApplicationtoauthorizeaclassaction;

ORDERtheDefendantstodepositintheofficeofthisCourtthetotalityofthesumswhichformspartofthecollectiverecovery,withinterestandcosts;

ORDER that the claims of individual Group members be the object ofcollective liquidation if the proof permits and alternately, by individualliquidation;

CONDEMN theDefendantstobearthecostsof thepresentaction includingthe cost of notices, the cost of management of claims and the costs ofexperts,ifany,includingthecostsofexpertsrequiredtoestablishtheamountofthecollectiverecoveryorders;

RENDERanyotherorderthatthisHonourableCourtshalldetermine;

DECLAREthatallmembersoftheGroupthathavenotrequestedtheirexclusion,beboundbyany judgementtoberenderedontheclassactiontobe instituted inthemannerprovidedforbythelaw;

FIXthedelayofexclusionatthirty(30)daysfromthedateofthepublicationofthenoticetothemembers,dateuponwhichthemembersoftheGroupthathavenotexercisedtheirmeansofexclusionwillbeboundbyanyjudgementtoberenderedherein;

ORDERthepublicationofanoticetothemembersoftheGroupinaccordancewitharticle579C.C.P.withinsixty(60)daysfromthejudgementtoberenderedhereininthe“News”sectionsoftheSaturdayeditionsofLAPRESSE,theNATIONALPOSTandtheMONTREALGAZETTE;

ORDERthatsaidnoticebepublishedontheDefendants’variouswebsites,Facebook

-31-

pages and Twitter accounts, in a conspicuous place,with a link stating “Notice toNissanVersaOwners/Lessees(YearModels2007-2012)”;

ORDER the Defendants to send an Abbreviated Notice by e-mail to each Groupmember,totheirlastknowne-mailaddress,withthesubjectline“NoticeofaClassAction”;

RENDERanyotherorderthatthisHonourableCourtshalldetermine;

THEWHOLEwithcostsincludingpublicationsfees.

Montreal,June27th,2016

SIMON&ASSOCIÉSAttorneysforApplicant

SUMMONS(ARTICLES145ANDFOLLOWINGC.C.P)_________________________________

FilingofajudicialapplicationTakenotice that theApplicanthas filed thisApplication forAuthorization to InstituteaClassActionandtoAppointtheStatusofRepresentativePlaintiffintheofficeoftheSuperiorCourtinthejudicialdistrictofMontreal.Defendant'sanswerYoumustanswertheapplicationinwriting,personallyorthroughalawyer,atthecourthouseofMontreal situatedat 1RueNotre-DameE,Montréal,Quebec,H2Y1B6,within15daysofserviceof theApplicationor, if youhavenodomicile, residenceorestablishment inQuébec,within30days.TheanswermustbenotifiedtotheApplicant’slawyeror,iftheApplicantisnotrepresented,totheApplicant.FailuretoanswerIfyoufailtoanswerwithinthetimelimitof15or30days,asapplicable,adefaultjudgementmay be rendered against you without further notice and you may, according to thecircumstances,berequiredtopaythelegalcosts.ContentofanswerInyouranswer,youmuststateyourintentionto:

• negotiateasettlement;• proposemediationtoresolvethedispute;• defend the application and, in the cases required by the Code, cooperate with the

Applicantinpreparingthecaseprotocolthatistogoverntheconductoftheproceeding.Theprotocolmustbefiledwiththecourtofficeinthedistrictspecifiedabovewithin45days after service of the summons or, in family matters or if you have no domicile,residenceorestablishmentinQuébec,within3monthsafterservice;

• proposeasettlementconference.Theanswertothesummonsmustincludeyourcontactinformationand,ifyouarerepresentedbyalawyer,thelawyer'snameandcontactinformation.ChangeofjudicialdistrictYoumay ask the court to refer theoriginatingApplication to thedistrict of yourdomicile orresidence, or of your elected domicile or the district designated by an agreement with theplaintiff.

If the application pertains to an employment contract, consumer contract or insurancecontract, or to the exercise of a hypothecary right on an immovable serving as your mainresidence,andifyouaretheemployee,consumer,insuredperson,beneficiaryoftheinsurancecontractorhypothecarydebtor,youmayask fora referral to thedistrictofyourdomicileorresidence or the district where the immovable is situated or the loss occurred. The requestmust be filedwith the special clerk of the district of territorial jurisdiction after it has beennotified to the other parties and to the office of the court already seized of the originatingapplication.TransferofapplicationtoSmallClaimsDivisionIfyouqualify toactasaplaintiffunder therulesgoverning therecoveryofsmallclaims,youmayalsocontacttheclerkofthecourttorequestthattheapplicationbeprocessedaccordingto those rules. If you make this request, the plaintiff's legal costs will not exceed thoseprescribedfortherecoveryofsmallclaims.CallingtoacasemanagementconferenceWithin20daysafter thecaseprotocolmentionedabove is filed, thecourtmaycall you toacasemanagementconferencetoensuretheorderlyprogressoftheproceeding.Failingthis,theprotocolispresumedtobeaccepted.ExhibitssupportingtheapplicationIn supportof theApplication forAuthorization to InstituteaClassActionand toAppoint theStatusofRepresentativePlaintiff,theApplicantintendstousethefollowingexhibits:ExhibitP-1: CopyoftheRecallNoticetitled“OwnerNotificationTransportCanada2015402”,

sentfromNissanCanadaInc.,datedNovember2015;ExhibitP-2: Extract of the Transport Canada website for Transportation Canada Recall

#2015402;ExhibitP-3: CopyofTechnicalServiceBulletin#NTB15-078,senttoNissandealersanddated

September17th,2015;ExhibitP-4: Copyof letter sent toNissanby theU.S.Departmentof Transportation, dated

September30th,2015,confirmingthattherecallconcerns218,019vehicles;ExhibitP-5: CopyoftheTSBsentbyNissantoitsdealers(Reference:PM565),datedFebruary

15th,2016;ExhibitP-6: CopyNissan’sFrenchbrochuretitled“Versa2010deNissan”;

ExhibitP-7: Copythe2008NissanVersaEnglishbrochure;ExhibitP-8: En liasse, copy of consumer complaints, describing the suspension/steering

issues,publiclyrecordedontheNHTSAwebsitebeginningJune2007;ExhibitP-9: CopyofNissanTSBNTB11-032,datedMarch28th,2011;ExhibitP-10: En liasse, copies of the French and English versions of the 2012 Nissan Versa

brochure;ExhibitP-11: Copyofanextractfromtheenterprise’sinformationstatementfromtheQuebec

enterpriseregister(CIDREQ)forNissanCanadaInc.;ExhibitP-12: CopyoftheContractofSale(“Contratdevente”),datedJuly31st,2013,forthe

purchaseofa2009NissanVersa(VIN:3N1BC13E09L488317)fromCITÉNISSAN;ExhibitP-13: CopyofinvoicefromCanadianTiredatedJune16th,2016;ExhibitP-14: CopyNissaninvoicedatedJune20th,2016,forreplacementofcoilsprings;ExhibitP-15: Copy of October 2015 article titled: “Oh, Snap: 218,000 Nissan Versa Models

RecalledforBrokenCoilSprings”,writtenbyjournalistCliffordAtiyeh;Theseexhibitsareavailableonrequest.NoticeofpresentationofanapplicationIftheapplicationisanapplicationinthecourseofaproceedingoranapplicationunderBookIII,V,exceptinganapplication in familymattersmentioned inarticle409,orVIof theCode, theestablishment of a case protocol is not required; however, the application must beaccompaniedbyanoticestatingthedateandtimeitistobepresented. Montreal,June27th,2016

SIMON&ASSOCIÉSAttorneysforApplicant

NOTICEOFPRESENTATION(articles146and574al.2N.C.P.C.)

TO: NissanCanadaInc. 5290OrbitorDrive P.O.Box1709.StationB, Mississauga,Ontario,L4W4Z5 NissanNorthAmericaInc. 1NissanWay, Franklin,Tennessee, 37067,UnitedStatesofAmerica NissanMotorCo.Ltd. 1-1,Takashima1-chome Nishi-ku,Yokohama-shi, Kanagawa220-8686,Japan DefendantsTAKE NOTICE that Applicant’sApplication for Authorization to Institute a Class Action and toAppoint the Status of Representative Plaintiffwill be presented before the Superior Court at1RueNotre-DameE,Montréal,Quebec,H2Y1B6,onthedatesetbythecoordinatoroftheClassActionchamber.GOVERNYOURSELVESACCORDINGLY.

Montreal,June27th,2016

___________________________________SIMON&ASSOCIÉSAttorneysforApplicant