Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute centered on a $320,000 loan intended for the purchase of a condominium.

• Loan was documented in a contract between the defendant and a company owned by the plaintiff, not the plaintiff personally.

• Plaintiff sued in his own name without producing the contract during trial.

• Defendant challenged the action due to lack of legal standing and alleged procedural abuse.

• Trial judge found the lawsuit abusive and ordered $10,000 in compensatory damages for extrajudicial fees.

• Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal, finding no arguable error or injustice in the trial judgment.

Facts and procedural background

In Beausoleil v. Moreau-Jeannotte, 2025 QCCA 516, Serge Beausoleil sought to appeal a judgment from the Superior Court of Québec rendered on January 22, 2025. The case concerned a $320,000 loan Beausoleil had provided to Marie-Michèle Moreau-Jeannotte to finance her purchase of a condominium. The loan consisted of a $10,000 deposit at the time of signing the purchase offer and a personal cheque for $310,000 dated June 3, 2021. A formal loan agreement dated June 24, 2021, was drawn up at Beausoleil’s request, but it was executed between Moreau-Jeannotte and a numbered company, 9118-6395 Québec inc., which was Beausoleil’s holding company. The contract outlined repayment terms but Beausoleil did not produce this agreement in the initial legal proceedings.

In April 2024, Beausoleil sued Moreau-Jeannotte personally for repayment of the loan, basing his claim solely on the cheque. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing two main points: there was no direct legal relationship between her and Beausoleil (as he was not a party to the loan agreement), and the claim had no reasonable chance of success based on the repayment terms set out in the contract. She also alleged abuse of process and sought reimbursement for her legal fees.

Trial court decision

The trial judge agreed with the defendant and granted the motion to dismiss the claim. The court found the proceedings to be abusive and awarded $10,000 to the defendant in compensation for extrajudicial legal fees. The judgment emphasized that Beausoleil lacked standing, as the loan agreement existed between the defendant and a separate legal entity. The judge noted the absence of the contract at trial and the inconsistencies in Beausoleil’s claim. Furthermore, the judge concluded that the defendant acknowledged owing the money to the company and intended to repay it under the contract terms, meaning the company’s right to claim remained intact. Thus, Beausoleil personally had no viable claim.

Court of Appeal decision

Beausoleil applied for permission to appeal under article 30(2)(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires leave in cases where a claim is dismissed as abusive. The Court of Appeal, presided by Justice Stephen W. Hamilton, examined whether the application raised a question of principle, a novel legal issue, or conflicting jurisprudence. The court found none of these criteria were met. It also considered whether the trial judgment presented any apparent weakness or risk of injustice and again found no such grounds.

Justice Hamilton emphasized that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and allowing it would contradict principles of proportionality and judicial economy. The argument that interrogatories might have uncovered new evidence was deemed unsubstantiated, especially since the plaintiff had failed to raise such issues earlier or present any concrete evidence. As for the alleged loss of legal recourse due to prescription, the court clarified that the corporate entity could still claim repayment from the defendant. The plaintiff’s personal claim was rightly dismissed, and no injustice resulted.

Finally, regarding the $10,000 awarded for abusive proceedings, the appellate judge found it was well within the trial judge’s discretionary powers, especially considering the documented legal expenses totaling nearly $13,000. No error or overreach justified appellate interference.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal dismissed Beausoleil’s application for leave to appeal, with costs. The decision confirms the importance of legal standing, the evidentiary role of formal agreements, and the courts’ discretion in sanctioning procedural abuse. It serves as a cautionary case on the necessity of properly structuring and presenting claims, especially when corporate structures and formal contracts are involved.