Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The applicants sought leave to appeal a Superior Court decision excluding a third expert report and architectural document filed shortly before trial.

• The excluded documents altered key damage claims and introduced new financial and planning assessments beyond prior evidence.

• The trial judge found the late filings unjustified, procedurally abusive, and contrary to judicial cooperation obligations.

• The applicants argued the documents were updates, not new expert reports, and that exclusion caused irreparable harm to their case.

• The Court of Appeal held the trial judge exercised discretion properly and found no serious issue warranting appellate review.

• The motion for leave to appeal and to suspend proceedings was denied as inconsistent with procedural fairness and judicial efficiency.

Background and facts of the case

In 8824371 Canada inc. c. Village de Senneville, a real estate developer and its shareholder, Farzad Shodjai, initiated legal proceedings against the Village de Senneville. They challenged the validity of a municipal zoning by-law that allegedly blocked their development project. The plaintiffs claimed the by-law was adopted in bad faith, arbitrarily, and discriminatorily, and sought nearly $7 million in damages. Their claim relied on two expert appraisal reports estimating financial losses due to the regulation.

As trial approached, the plaintiffs attempted to file two new documents: a third appraisal report (“Rapport d’évaluation #3”) dated January 2025 and an architectural “Révision du Cahier des critères architecturaux” from 2020. The third report expanded the damage period through 2031 and introduced financial data not previously used. The architectural document, authored by a professional who had already submitted a related letter in 2018, offered opinions on regulatory compliance.

The Village opposed both filings, arguing they introduced new expert evidence at the eleventh hour without proper authorization. A hearing was held before the assigned trial judge, who ruled on March 13, 2025, that the documents were inadmissible.

Superior Court’s ruling on late evidence

The Superior Court concluded that the third report substantially changed the plaintiffs' theory of damages and should be classified as a new expert report, not a mere update. It noted that the report introduced financial projections through 2031 and relied on corporate financial statements previously undisclosed. Similarly, the architectural “Révision” was deemed an untimely expert opinion, never previously disclosed in procedural agreements or witness lists.

The judge emphasized that procedural protocols are binding judicial contracts requiring cooperation and timely disclosure. He found that the late filings undermined the integrity of the trial process and prejudiced the defense, which had prepared based on previously disclosed material. He also rejected the plaintiffs’ informal and unsupported request to admit the documents de bene esse.

Application for leave to appeal and suspension of trial

On March 17, 2025—the very day trial was scheduled to begin—the plaintiffs appeared before the Quebec Court of Appeal requesting permission to appeal the Superior Court’s interlocutory judgment. They also sought to suspend the trial pending appeal. They argued that the lower court had erred in evaluating the nature and timing of the documents and that the exclusion of their updated expert report caused irreparable harm to their case.

Justice Judith Harvie of the Court of Appeal dismissed the application. She found that the trial judge had applied the correct legal principles and exercised judicial discretion appropriately. The Court reaffirmed that leave to appeal interlocutory judgments under article 31(2) C.p.c. is exceptional and requires both serious legal error and a compelling interest of justice.

Conclusion and final decision

The Court held that no such interest was present. The applicants’ failure to justify the late filings, their absence of sworn explanations, and their attempt to reinvent their damage theory on the eve of trial weighed heavily against them. The Court also noted the broader prejudice to the judicial system, including delays, wasted resources, and disruption to scheduled proceedings.

The request for leave to appeal and the motion to suspend the trial were both denied. Legal costs were awarded against the applicants. The case affirms the courts’ strict adherence to procedural discipline and their limited tolerance for last-minute tactical shifts in complex civil litigation.