CANADA

PROVINCEOFQUÉBECDISTRICTOFMONTRÉAL

(ClassAction)SUPERIORCOURT

NO:500-06-000805-164 MUSTAPHAMAHMOUD

Applicant

-vs-LA SOCIÉTÉ DES CASINOS DU QUÉBEC INC.,legal person, having its head office at 500Sherbrooke street West, Montreal, district ofMontreal,ProvinceofQuebec,H3A3C6Defendant

APPLICATIONTOAUTHORIZETHEBRINGINGOFACLASSACTIONANDTOAPPOINTTHESTATUSOFREPRESENTATIVEPLAINTIFF

(ARTICLE571ANDFOLLOWINGC.C.P)________________________________________________________

TOONEOFTHEHONOURABLEJUDGESOFTHESUPERIORCOURT,SITTINGINANDFORTHEDISTRICTOFMONTREAL,YOURAPPLICANTSTATESASFOLLOWS:I. GENERALPRESENTATION

A) THEACTION

1. Applicantwishestoinstituteaclassactiononbehalfofthefollowingclass,ofwhichheisamember,namely:

Every consumer, pursuant to the termsofQuebec’s ConsumerProtection Act (the “CPA”), who, since August 12th, 2013 (the“Class Period”), purchased any food or beverages from theCasino de Montréal, the Casino de Charlevoix, the Casino deMont-Tremblantand/oroftheCasinoduLac-Leamy,andwho

-2-

waschargedahigherpricethanthatadvertisedonthemenu;

oranyotherclasstobedeterminedbytheCourt.

(hereinafterreferredtoasthe“Class”)

B) THEPARTIES

2. Applicant is a criminal defence attorney and a member in good standing of theBarreauduQuébec;

3. ApplicantisaconsumerwithinthemeaningoftheCPA;

4. Defendant, la Société des casinos du Québec inc. (hereinafter the “SCQ”), is asubsidiaryofLoto-Québec(astate-ownedenterprise),responsiblefortheday-to-daymanagementofQuebec’sfourlicensedcasinos,asitappearsfromanextractoftheenterprise’sinformationstatementfromtheenterpriseregister(CIDREQ),ApplicantdisclosingExhibitP-1;

5. Defendant is authorized to operate andmanage the following four casinos in theprovinceofQuebec:

a) CasinodeMontréal,situatedat1AvenueduCasino,Montreal,H3C4W7;

b) CasinoduLac-Leamy,situatedat1BoulevardduCasino,Gatineau,J8Y6W3;

c) CasinodeCharlevoix,situatedat183RueRichelieu,LaMalbaie,G5A1X8;

d) Casino de Mont-Tremblant, situated at 300 Chemin des Pléiades, Mont-Tremblant,J8E0A7;

6. Inthecourseof itsbusinessDefendantalsomanagesseveralbars,restaurantsandcabarets (all locatedwithin the aforementioned casinos), notably those located intheCasinodeMontréal, including: (i) “Valet de Carreau”; (ii) “LaDamede cœur”;(iii)“LeRoidepique”;and(iv)“BarPoker”;

II. CONDITIONS REQUIRED TO AUTHORIZE THIS CLASS ACTION AND TO APPOINT THE

STATUSOFREPRESENTATIVEPLAINTIFF(SECTION575C.C.P.):

1) THEFACTSALLEGEDAPPEARTOJUSTIFYTHECONCLUSIONSSOUGHT

7. OnSaturday,May14th,2016,Applicantandseveralofhis friendswent foranightoutattheCasinodeMontréal;

-3-

8. ApplicantandhisfriendsarrivedtotheCasinodeMontréalaround10:00p.m.thatSaturdayevening;

9. Applicantwenttothecasinothatnighttosocializewithhis friends(Applicantveryrarely gambles, and when he does he will budget approximately $20-$40 for thenight);

10. ApplicantandhisfriendsstayedattheCasinodeMontréaluntilapproximately2:00a.m.thefollowingday,Sunday,May15th,2016;

11. OnSunday,May15th,2016,ataround1:07a.m.,Applicantandhisfriendswenttothe“Valetdecarreau”barintheCasinodeMontréal,locatednexttothedanceflooratthemainentrancelevel;

12. Afterconsultingthebar’smenu,Applicantorderedtwo(2)“BloodyCaesar”drinks(whichhesawadvertisedat$5.75plustaxes)andone(1)“VirginCaesar”drinkforhisfriendsandhimselffromtheValetdecarreaubar,ApplicantdisclosinghisreceiptasExhibitP-2;

13. ThepricesadvertisedbytheCasinodeMontréalfora“BloodyCaesar”isreproducedbelow, the whole as is appears from a copy of theValet de carreau bar’smenu,Applicantdisclosingthetwo-sidedmenuasExhibitP-3:

FRIDAY-SATURDAY SUNDAYTOTHURSDAYBloodyCaesar $7.25(plustaxes) $5.75(plustaxes)

14. ApplicantpurchasedthedrinksonSunday,May15th,2016,asitclearlyappearsfrom

theValetdecarreaureceipt,ExhibitP-2;

15. May 15th, 2016, was a Sunday, as it appears from a copy of the 2016 GazetteOfficielleduQuébeccalendar,1ApplicantdisclosingthecalendarasExhibitP-4;

16. ThepriceadvertisedbytheDefendantattheValetdecarreaubar(aswellasattheotherbarsattheCasinodeMontréal)foraBloodyCaesarpurchasedonaSundayis$5.75 plus taxes, as it clearly appears from the Defendant’smenu, Exhibit P-3, aportionofwhichisreproducedbelow:

1http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/documents/gazette/pdf/calendriers/gazette-p1-complet-2016.pdf

-4-

17. Accordingtoparagraphcofsection224CPA,itisaprohibitedbusinesspracticeforanymerchant to, by anymeanswhatever, charge, for goods or services, a higherpricethanthatadvertised;

18. DefendantcommitsprohibitedbusinesspracticesasdefinedintheCPA;

(i) Applicant’s claim for a reduction of his obligation (paragraph c of section 224andparagraphcofsection272CPA)

19. Defendant unlawfully charged Applicant, on Sunday, the higher “Friday-Saturday”price of $7.25 plus taxes, instead of the $5.75 plus taxes price advertised forSundays;

20. Applicant(andlikelyothers)alsogaveagratuityof15%basedonthehigheramountof$16.66appearingonhis receipt (15%gratuityon$16.66=$2.50), insteadofontheadvertisedamountof$13.22(15%gratuityon$13.22=$1.98);

21. Quebecconsumerlawisamatterofpublicorder;

-5-

22. DefendantoperatesitsbarsintheprovinceofQuebecbyunlawfullyderogatingfromtheCPAandisthereforeinviolationofparagraphcofsection224CPA;

23. Consequently, Applicant is entitled to demand the reimbursement of the surpluspaid,itemizedasfollows:

§ $16.66(pricepaidfortwoBloodyCaesars)2-$13.22(priceadvertised)3=$3.44

§ $2.50(gratuitypaidonpricecharged)-$1.98(gratuityonadvertisedprice)=$0.52

Total:$3.96

(ii) Applicant’sclaimforpunitivedamages(paragraphcofs.224ands.272CPA)

24. Upon receiving his receipt, Applicant immediately asked his bartender about thepricingdiscrepancies;

25. Applicant requested from his bartender that he be charged the lower priceadvertisedforSundays(becauseitwasSunday),butwastoldbyhisbartenderthatallcasinos in theprovinceofQuebecareprogrammedtoautomaticallychargetheSaturdaypriceuntil3:00a.m.onSunday,andthattheSundaypriceonlygoes intoeffectonSundayat11:00a.m.;

26. ItisreasonableforApplicanttosuggestthatSaturdayeveningsarethebusiestnightsfortheCasinodeMontréalanditsbars(bothintermsoftrafficfromtourists/localsandintermsofrevenue);

27. Loto-Québecisastate-ownedenterpriseandtheDefendant,asasubsidiaryofLoto-Québec, ought to lead by example in respecting laws in force in the province ofQuebec,whichitdoesnot;

28. ThisnonchalanceonthepartoftheDefendantisinandofitselfanimportantreasonfor this Court to enforcemeasures thatwill punish the SCQ, aswell as deter anddissuade other entities from engaging in similar reprehensible conduct to thedetrimentofQuebecconsumers;

29. Thepunitivedamagesprovidedfor insection272CPAhaveapreventiveobjective,thatis,todiscouragetherepetitionofsuchundesirableconduct(evenmoresowhencommittedbyastate-ownedenterprise);

30. NotonlydoestheSCQviolatetheCPAbychargingconsumersthehigherpriceinto

2$7.25plusGST/PST=$8.33(ApplicantpurchasedtwoBloodyCaesarsforatotalof$16.33).3$5.75plusGST/PST=$6.61(ApplicantpurchasedtwoBloodyCaesarsforwhatshouldhavebeenatotalof$13.22).

-6-

Sunday morning, they refused to credit the Applicant even as he brought theprohibitedbusinesspracticetotheirattention;

31. TheSCQ’sviolationisintentional;

32. TheSCQdemonstrated through itsbehavior that itwasmore concernedabout itsbottomlinethanaboutrespectingconsumers’rightsundertheCPA;

33. ConsideringthewholeoftheSCQ’sconductatthetimeofandaftertheviolations,therecordshowsthattheSCQ:

a) displaysignorancebyprogrammingitscomputerssothatthemoreexpensiveSaturdaypriceischargedthroughSundaymorning;

b) was careless by not charging the Applicant the correct amount once theunlawfulamountwasbroughttotheirattention;

c) was negligent overall with respect to its obligations and consumers’ rightsundertheCPA;

34. Inthesecircumstances,Applicant’sclaimforpunitivedamages,inanamounttobedetermined,isjustified;

2) THECLAIMSOFTHEMEMBERSOFTHECLASSRAISEIDENTICAL,SIMILARORRELATED

ISSUESOFLAWORFACT:

35. The claimsof everymemberof the Class are foundedon very similar facts to theApplicant’sclaim;

36. EverymemberoftheClasspurchasedabeveragefromtheDefendantonaSundayatanunlawfullyinflatedprice;

37. The prohibited practices committed the SCQ was virtually identical vis-a-vis eachClassmember(theonlyvariablebeingthespecificbeveragepurchased);

38. Theterm“day”(or“jour”inFrench)isdefinedbyMeHubertReidinthe5theditionofthe“Dictionnairededroitquébécoisetcanadien2015”asfollows:4

Jour(n.m.)Espace de temps de vingt-quatre heures, de minuit à minuit,servantà lacomputationdesdélaisquisecalculentpar jouretnonparheure.[ouremphasisinbold].

4http://dictionnairereid.caij.qc.ca/recherche#q=jour&t=edictionnaire&sort=relevancy&m=search

-7-

39. AnActRespectingLiquorPermits,(Loisurlespermisd'alcool,CQLRcP-9.1)providesatitssection59asfollows(EnglishandFrenchversionsreproduced):

59. Apermit authorizing alcoholic beverages to be sold or servedfor consumption on the premisesmay be used every day, from 8:00a.m.until3:00a.m.thefollowingmorning.

However, the sale of alcoholic beverages, for take out or delivery,authorizedbytherestaurantsalespermitmaytakeplaceonlyduringtheperiodbetween8a.m.and11p.m…

59. Un permis autorisant la vente ou le service de boissonsalcooliques pour consommation sur place peut être exploité tous lesjours,dehuitheuresàtroisheureslelendemain.

Toutefois, la vente de boissons alcooliques, pour emporter ou livrer,autoriséepar le permis de restaurantpour vendrenepeutavoir lieuquedurantlapériodecompriseentrehuitheuresetvingt-troisheures.

[ouremphasisunderlinedinbold].

40. TheLarousseFrenchdictionarydefinestheterm“lendemain”as:

Le jour qui suit immédiatement celui dont on parle, situé dans lepassé ou le futur : Il avait différé jusqu'au lendemain la décision àprendre.

41. Section 59 ofAnAct Respecting Liquor Permits confirms that drinks sold betweenmidnightand3:00a.m.areinfactsoldonthefollowingday(i.e.“lelendemain”oulejourquisuitimmédiatementceluidontonparle);

42. On Sundays, the Defendant has the obligation to sell its drinks at the “Sunday”advertisedprice;

43. Consequently, the Defendant defaults on its obligation to sell the goods at theadvertisedprice,everytimethatitchargesaClassmembertheSaturdayprice,whenitisinfactSunday;

44. TheSCQfailsinitsobligationnottochargeahigherpricethanthatadvertisedforitsbeverages (in French “exiger pour un bien un prix supérieur à celui qui estannoncé”),pursuanttoparagraphcofsection224CPA;

45. ByreasonoftheSCQ’sunlawfulconduct,ApplicantandmembersoftheClasshavesuffereddamages,whichtheymaycollectivelyclaimagainsttheSCQ;

46. Each member of the Class has suffered damages equivalent to the difference

-8-

betweenthemoreexpensiveSaturdaypriceandthelessexpensiveSundayprice;

47. In taking the foregoing into account, all members of the Class are justified inclaiming thesumswhich represent thedifferencebetween theSaturdaypriceandtheSundayprice(includingthehighergratuity),aswellaspunitivedamages;

48. Allof thedamages to theClassmembersareadirect andproximate resultof theDefendant’smisconduct;

49. Individualquestions, ifany,palebycomparisontothecommonquestionsthataresignificanttotheoutcomeofthepresentApplication;

50. TherecoursesoftheClassmembersraiseidentical,similarorrelatedquestionsoffactorlaw,namely:

a) Arepurchasesmadeafter11:59p.m.onSaturdays(thatis,asof12:00a.m.onSundays)madeonaSunday?

b) Ifso,shouldtheSCQ’sbarchargethelowerSundaypricesasofmidnight?

c) DidtheSCQviolateparagraphcofsection224CPA?

d) Are the Classmembers entitled to compensatory damages and, if so, inwhatamount?

e) AretheClassmembersentitledtopunitivedamagesand,ifso,inwhatamount?

f) ShouldaninjunctiveremedybeorderedtoforcetheSCQtoceasechargingtheSaturdaypriceonSundays?

3) THECOMPOSITIONOFTHECLASS

51. ThecompositionoftheClassmakesitdifficultorimpracticabletoapplytherulesformandatestotakepartinjudicialproceedingsonbehalfofothersorforconsolidationofproceedings;

52. According to Loto-Quebec’s 2015-2016 Annual Report (page 8), close to 9millionpeople visited the four (4) casinos managed by the SCQ in Quebec, ApplicantdisclosingtheAnnualReportasExhibitP-5;

53. Loto-Quebec’s2015-2016AnnualReport,ExhibitP-5,furtherstatesthattherevenuefor the four (4) casinosmanaged by the SCQ in Quebec totaled$770,621,000.00,withLoto-Quebecnotingatpage26that:“L’augmentationdel’achalandage(+5,9%)est plus importante que l’augmentation des revenus de jeu, ce qui démontre la

-9-

popularitédupositionnementaxésurledivertissement”;

54. ThenumberofpersonsincludedintheClasscouldbeinthehundredsofthousands,ifnotmillions(manyClassmemberspurchasedmorethanonebeverage);

55. ItisimpossiblefortheApplicanttoknowtheexactnumberofdrinkssoldduringtheClassPeriodasofmidnightonSundays,however,theDefendantisinpossessionofthisinformation;

56. ThenamesandaddressesofallpersonsincludedintheClassarenotknowntotheApplicant, as Class members are very numerous and are dispersed across theprovince,acrossCanadaandelsewhere;

57. These factsdemonstrate that itwouldbe impractical, ifnot impossible, tocontacteachandeveryClassmembertoobtainmandatesandtojointheminoneaction;

58. Inthesecircumstances,aclassactionistheonlyappropriateprocedureforallofthemembersoftheClasstoeffectivelypursuetheirrespectiverightsandhaveaccesstojusticewithoutoverburdeningthecourtsystem;

4) THECLASSMEMBERAPPOINTEDASREPRESENTATIVEPLAINTIFFISINAPOSITIONTO

PROPERLYREPRESENTTHECLASSMEMBERS:

59. Applicantrequeststhathebeappointedthestatusofrepresentativeplaintiff;

60. ApplicantisamemberoftheClass;

61. ApplicantisacriminaldefenceattorneypracticingintheprovinceofQuebecandispassionateaboutensuringthatthestateprotectthebasicrightsofitscitizens;

62. Following the incident of May 15th, 2016, the Applicant contacted his attorneys,becauseheknewthattheyhaveexperiencewithconsumerprotection-relatedclassactions;

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

64. Applicant was shocked to learn that a state-owned enterprise operates in theprovinceofQuebecwithsuchcompletedisregardtotheCPA;

65. Applicantrealizesthatonitsownhisclaimisminor,butnonethelessfeelsthattheSCQshouldbeheldaccountableforitsmisconduct.ApplicantistakingthisactionsothatheandtheClassmemberscanrecoversumsunlawfullycharged,aswellasto

-10-

ensurethattheSCQadoptsanewpolicythatisinconformitywiththeCPA;

66. Applicantalso feels thatanexampleshouldbemadeofhowtheSCQhandledthissituation, notably by: (i) programming their systems to deceitfully charge a higherprice intoSundaymorning;and (ii)not reimbursing theApplicantoncehebroughttheviolationtotheirattention;

67. AsforidentifyingotherClassmembers,theApplicantdrawscertaininferencesfromthe situation, and this based on the information provided by Loto-Quebec in its2015-2016 Annual Report, Exhibit P-5, thatmore than 9million people visited itscasinosinthelastyearalone.Applicantassumesthatthecasinosseethemosttrafficon Saturday nights and realizes that by all accounts, there are is an importantnumberofconsumersthatfindthemselvesinanidenticalsituationandthatitwouldnotbeusefulforhimtoattempttoidentifythemgiventheirsheernumber;

68. Applicant is ready and available to manage and direct the present action in theinterestofthemembersoftheClassthathewishestorepresentandisdeterminedto leadthepresentdossieruntilafinalresolutionofthematter,thewholeforthebenefitoftheClass,aswellas,todedicatethetimenecessaryforthepresentactionandtocollaboratewithhisattorneys;

69. Applicant has the capacity and interest to fairly and adequately protect andrepresenttheinterestofthemembersoftheClass;

70. Applicant,withtheassistanceofhisattorneys,isreadyandavailabletodedicatethetimenecessary for thisactionand to collaboratewithothermembersof theClassandtokeeptheminformed;

71. Applicantisingoodfaithandhasinstitutedthisactionforthesolepurposeofhavinghisrights,aswellastherightsofotherClassmembers,recognizedandprotectedsothat they may be compensated for the damages that they have suffered as aconsequenceoftheSCQ’smisconduct;

72. Applicantunderstandsthenatureoftheaction;

73. Applicant’sinterestsarenotantagonistictothoseofothermembersoftheClass;

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

III. NATUREOFTHEACTIONANDCONCLUSIONSSOUGHT

75. Theaction that theApplicantwishes to instituteonbehalfof themembersof the

-11-

Classisanactionindamages,injunctivereliefanddeclaratoryjudgment;

76. TheconclusionsthattheApplicantwishestointroducebywayofanApplicationtoinstituteproceedingsare:

GRANTPlaintiff’sactionagainsttheDefendantonbehalfofallthemembersoftheClass;

DECLAREtheDefendantliableforthedamagessufferedbytheApplicantandeachofthemembersoftheClass;

ORDERtheDefendanttoceasechargingtheSaturdaypricesonSundays;

CONDEMNtheDefendanttopayMustaphaMahmoudtheamountof$3.96itemizedasfollows:

§ $16.66(paidfortwoBloodyCaesars)-$13.22(priceadvertised)=$3.44§ $2.50(gratuityonSaturdayprice)-$1.98(gratuityonSundayprice)=$0.52

-------------Total=$3.96

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

CONDEMN the Defendant to pay to each of the members of the Class punitivedamages, inanamount tobedetermined,andORDER collectiverecoveryof thesesums;

CONDEMNtheDefendanttopayinterestandtheadditionalindemnityontheabovesumsaccordingtolawfromthedateofserviceoftheApplicationtoauthorizeaclassaction;

ORDERtheDefendanttodeposit intheofficeofthisCourtthetotalityofthesumswhichformspartofthecollectiverecovery,withinterestandcosts;

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

CONDEMNtheDefendanttobearthecostsofthepresentactionincludingthecostof 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;

-12-

77. TheinterestsofjusticefavourthatthisApplicationbegrantedinaccordancewithitsconclusions;

IV. JURISDICTION

78. TheApplicantsuggeststhatthisclassactionbeexercisedbeforetheSuperiorCourtoftheprovinceofQuebec,inthedistrictofMontreal,forthefollowingreasons:

a) Applicant’spurchasesweremadeintheCasinodeMontréal,inthedistrictofMontreal;

b) AgreatnumberofthemembersoftheClass,includingtheApplicant,resideinthedistrictofMontreal;

c) Defendant conducts business in the district of Montreal, notably at theCasinodeMontréal;

d) Defendant’sheadofficeisinthedistrictofMontreal;

e) Applicant’sattorneyspracticetheirprofessioninthedistrictofMontreal;

FORTHESEREASONS,MAYITPLEASETHECOURT:

GRANTthepresentapplication;

AUTHORIZE thebringingofaclassaction intheformofanApplicationto instituteproceedingsindamagesandforinjunctiverelief;

APPOINTtheApplicantthestatusofrepresentativeplaintiffofthepersonsincludedintheClasshereindescribedas:

Class:

Every consumer, pursuant to the termsofQuebec’s ConsumerProtection Act (the “CPA”), who, since August 12th, 2013 (the“Class Period”), purchased any food or beverages from theCasino de Montréal, the Casino de Charlevoix, the Casino deMont-Tremblant and/or of the Casino du Lac-Leamy, andwhowaschargedahigherpricethanthatadvertisedonthemenu;

oranyotherclasstobedeterminedbytheCourt.

(hereinafterreferredtoasthe“Class”)

-13-

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

a) Arepurchasesmadeafter11:59p.m.onSaturdays(thatis,asof12:00a.m.onSundays)madeonaSunday?

b) If so, should the SCQ’s bar charge the lower Sunday prices as ofmidnight?

c) DidtheSCQviolateparagraphcofsection224CPA?

d) AretheClassmembersentitledtocompensatorydamagesand,ifso,inwhatamount?

e) AretheClassmembersentitledtopunitivedamagesand,ifso,inwhatamount?

f) Should an injunctive remedy be ordered to force the SCQ to ceasechargingtheSaturdaypriceonSundays?

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

GRANTPlaintiff’sactionagainsttheDefendantonbehalfofallthemembersoftheClass;

DECLAREtheDefendantliableforthedamagessufferedbytheApplicantandeachofthemembersoftheClass;

ORDERtheDefendanttoceasechargingtheSaturdaypricesonSundays;

CONDEMN theDefendanttopayMustaphaMahmoudtheamountof$3.96itemizedasfollows:

§ $16.66(paidfortwoBloodyCaesars)-$13.22(priceadvertised)=$3.44§ $2.50(gratuityonSaturdayprice)-$1.98(gratuityonSundayprice)=$0.52 -------------

Total:$3.96

CONDEMN theDefendant topay toeachmemberof theClassa sumtobedeterminedincompensationofthedamagessuffered,andORDERcollectiverecoveryofthesesums;

CONDEMN the Defendant to pay to each of the members of the Classpunitive damages, in an amount to be determined, and ORDER collective

-14-

recoveryofthesesums;

CONDEMNtheDefendanttopayinterestandtheadditionalindemnityontheabove sumsaccording to law from thedateof serviceof theApplication toauthorizeaclassaction;

ORDERtheDefendanttodepositintheofficeofthisCourtthetotalityofthesumswhichformspartofthecollectiverecovery,withinterestandcosts;

ORDERthattheclaimsofindividualClassmembersbetheobjectofcollectiveliquidationiftheproofpermitsandalternately,byindividualliquidation;

CONDEMN theDefendant to bear the costs of the present action includingthe cost of notices, the cost of management of claims and the costs ofexperts,ifany,includingthecostsofexpertsrequiredtoestablishtheamountofthecollectiverecoveryorders;

RENDERanyotherorderthatthisHonourableCourtshalldetermine;

DECLARE thatallmembersoftheClassthathavenotrequestedtheirexclusion,beboundbyany judgementtoberenderedontheclassactiontobe instituted inthemannerprovidedforbythelaw;

FIXthedelayofexclusionatthirty(30)daysfromthedateofthepublicationofthenotice to themembers, dateuponwhich themembersof theClass that havenotexercisedtheirmeansofexclusionwillbeboundbyanyjudgementtoberenderedherein;

ORDER thepublicationofanoticetothemembersoftheClass inaccordancewitharticle579C.C.P.withinsixty(60)daysfromthejudgementtoberenderedhereininthe “News” sections of the Saturday editions of LA PRESSE, LE JOURNAL DEMONTRÉALandtheMONTREALGAZETTE;

ORDERthatsaidnoticebepublishedontheDefendant’svariouswebsites,FacebookpagesandTwitteraccounts, inaconspicuousplace,witha linkstating“NoticeofaClassAction”;

ORDERtheDefendanttosendtheirclientsand/ormembersanAbbreviatedNoticebye-mail,totheirlastknowne-mailaddress,withthesubjectline“NoticeofaClassAction”;

ORDERtheDefendanttosendtheirclientsand/ormembersanAbbreviatedNoticebyregularmail,totheirlastknownphysicaladdress,withthesubjectline“NoticeofaClassAction”;

-15-

RENDERanyotherorderthatthisHonourableCourtshalldetermine;

Thewholewithcostsincludingpublicationsfees.

Montreal,August12th,2016

(s)JoeyZukran

LEGROUPELPC,S.A.Per:MeJoeyZukranAttorneysforApplicant

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: Copy of the extract of the enterprise’s information statement from the

enterpriseregister(CIDREQ)forlaSociétédescasinosduQuébecinc.;ExhibitP-2: Applicant’s receipt #1429 from Bar valet de carreau, dated Sunday,May 15th,

2016,intheamountof$21.20;ExhibitP-3: CopyoftheValetdecarreaubar’smenuwithalistofprices;ExhibitP-4: Copyofthe2016GazetteOfficielleduQuébeccalendar;ExhibitP-5: CopyofLoto-Quebec’s2015-2016AnnualReport;Theseexhibitsareavailableonrequest.

NoticeofpresentationofanapplicationIftheapplicationisanapplicationinthecourseofaproceedingoranapplicationunderBookIII,V,exceptinganapplication in familymattersmentioned inarticle409,orVIof theCode, theestablishment of a case protocol is not required; however, the application must beaccompaniedbyanoticestatingthedateandtimeitistobepresented. Montreal,August12th,2016

(s)JoeyZukran

LEGROUPELPC,S.A.Per:MeJoeyZukranAttorneysforApplicant

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

TO: LASOCIÉTÉDESCASINOSDUQUÉBECINC.

500SherbrookestreetWestMontreal(Quebec)H3A3C6

DefendantTAKE 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,August12th,2016

(s)JoeyZukran

LEGROUPELPC,S.A.Per:MeJoeyZukranAttorneysforApplicant

NO: 500-06-000805-164

(C

lass Action)

SU

PE

RIO

R C

OU

RT

PR

OV

INC

E O

F QU

EB

EC

D

ISTR

ICT O

F MO

NTR

EA

L

MU

STA

PH

A M

AH

MO

UD

Applicant

-vs- LA

SO

CIÉ

TÉ D

ES

CA

SIN

OS

DU

QU

ÉB

EC

IN

C., legal person, having its head office at

500 Sherbrooke street West, M

ontreal, district of M

ontreal, Province of Quebec, H

3A 3C6

Defendant

AP

PLIC

ATIO

N FO

R A

UTH

OR

IZATIO

N TO

IN

STITU

TE A

CLA

SS

AC

TION

AN

D TO

A

PP

OIN

T THE

STA

TUS

OF

RE

PR

ES

EN

TATIV

E P

LAIN

TIFF (AR

TICLE 571 AN

D FO

LLOW

ING

C.C

.P)

C

OP

Y

LE GR

OU

PE JU

RID

IQU

E LPC

S.A.

AV

OC

AT

S – AT

TO

RN

EYS

1224, rue Stanley, bureau 215 M

ontréal (Québec) H

3B 2S7 Tél: 514.985.0995 x 712• Fax: 514.985.0944

E: jzukran@legroupelpc.com

M

E JO

EY

ZUK

RA

N

CO

DE

: AZ 00X

4 N

/D: 06-111