Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Defendants unilaterally withdrew from a settlement conference (CRA) previously agreed to by both parties without valid justification.

• The court assessed whether this refusal constituted a significant breach under article 342 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

• The defendants filed a counterclaim days before the scheduled CRA, then argued it should be converted into a preparatory conference.

• The judge found no unforeseen or new circumstances that would justify canceling the CRA.

• The court emphasized that a CRA is a mandatory procedural step once consented to and scheduled.

• The defendants' actions were deemed to undermine judicial efficiency and violated principles of good faith and procedural cooperation.

Facts of the case

Groupe Qualinet inc. filed a civil action against 9291-9745 Québec inc. and Salah Nasralla seeking $13,982.99, likely based on unpaid contractual services. As part of the proceedings in the Court of Québec, both parties consented to participate in a conference de règlement à l’amiable (CRA), a court-supervised settlement conference designed to facilitate dispute resolution. The CRA was scheduled for April 10, 2025.

Just days before the CRA, counsel for the defendants announced their client no longer wished to participate in the CRA, claiming that no settlement offer would be made. At the same time, they filed a counterclaim seeking damages and punitive relief, and requested that the CRA be converted into a conference préparatoire à l’instruction (CPI), a preparatory hearing for trial. The justification offered was that the plaintiff had not yet filed a formal response to the counterclaim, though this had been served only recently.

Legal issue before the court

The court was asked to determine whether the defendants’ unilateral refusal to proceed with the CRA constituted a “manquement important” (significant procedural misconduct) under article 342 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It also had to assess the validity of the reasons advanced for replacing the CRA with a CPI.

Court’s analysis and reasoning

The court began by affirming the critical role of the CRA in modern civil procedure. Under article 535.12 C.p.c., the CRA is a mandatory procedural step once agreed upon by the parties or ordered by the court, and its replacement is limited to exceptional cases explicitly permitted by law or justified by unforeseen circumstances.

Here, both parties had initially consented to the CRA and confirmed their intent on multiple occasions, including in earlier hearings and procedural filings. The defendants’ refusal, based on the filing of a late counterclaim and absence of a formal response from the plaintiff, did not meet the threshold of a new or unforeseen circumstance. The court found this reasoning to be evasive and unconvincing.

Judge Hélène Maillette held that the defendants’ actions—late procedural maneuvers, shifting strategy, and refusal to engage in the CRA—constituted an abuse of process and a significant breach under article 342. The judge emphasized that this conduct disrupted the efficient progress of the case, wasted court resources, and prejudiced both the plaintiff and the judicial system.

Conclusion and outcome

The Court of Québec ruled that the defendants committed a significant procedural breach by refusing to participate in the CRA without valid cause and by filing a counterclaim at the last minute to justify procedural delay. While no immediate sanctions were imposed, the court formally recognized the misconduct and reserved Groupe Qualinet inc.’s right to seek compensation under article 342 C.p.c.

The court ordered the parties to submit a joint form (SJ-1276) and appear for a preparatory conference. The defendants’ attempt to convert the CRA unilaterally was rejected, and their conduct was noted as contrary to principles of good faith and proportionality in civil procedure.