Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The appellants were denied the ability to introduce a syndic's email as late evidence after the trial had closed.

• The underlying civil claim concerned a latent defect discovered years after the purchase of a property.

• The key legal issue was whether bankrupt plaintiffs had standing to sue without formal retrocession of their legal rights.

• The trial judge refused the new evidence, citing delay, procedural violations, and prejudice to the defendants.

• The Court of Appeal found the trial judge’s discretion was exercised unfairly given the importance of the syndic’s confirmation.

• The appeal was allowed and the trial was ordered reopened to admit the syndic's email and permit related questioning.

Facts and procedural history

Marie-Claude Giroux and Philippe Bélisle purchased a property from Yvon Brault in 2011. Years later, in 2017, they discovered a latent defect in the property. They initiated a lawsuit in December 2019 against Brault and other defendants who were prior titleholders. However, at the time of filing, both appellants were undischarged bankrupts. Giroux was discharged in June 2020, Bélisle in September 2020. Their trustees, who had possession of all legal rights during the bankruptcy, had not initially reassigned the rights to pursue the claim back to them.

The case proceeded through various stages of litigation without the bankruptcy issue being raised. It was only weeks before the trial in late 2024 that the defendants raised concerns about the plaintiffs' standing, arguing they had no interest to sue without an express retrocession of rights by their bankruptcy trustees. In response, the plaintiffs submitted certificates of discharge and a general statement from the trustee indicating there was no equity in the property and that the trustee had no interest in pursuing the claim.

Refusal of late evidence at trial

During the final phase of trial in January 2025, the appellants contacted the trustee again to seek a more explicit retrocession. On the sixth day of trial, they received an email from the trustee confirming that all rights in the property had already been retroceded due to lack of interest for creditors. That same day, the appellants requested permission to file the email as new evidence and to re-open the trial to permit examination of the trustee. The trial judge refused the request, citing that the evidence was late, that opposing counsel could not cross-examine the trustee, and that admitting it would violate procedural fairness and delay trial closure.

Appeal and appellate court reasoning

The Court of Appeal of Quebec granted leave to appeal and ruled in favour of the appellants. The appellate judges found that the trial judge had not properly weighed the importance of the new evidence against the reasons for the delay. The syndic’s email, though late, had the potential to determine whether the appellants had legal standing—a threshold issue. The Court held that the trial judge had failed to give sufficient weight to the plaintiffs’ procedural diligence in responding to a last-minute shift in the defendants’ litigation strategy, which had intentionally concealed their interest-standing argument until late in the trial.

The Court also noted that the conduct of the defendants—who withheld their procedural objection until the close of evidence—was not in line with the principles of cooperation and fair play enshrined in the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure. The Court found that the appellants acted quickly to clarify the issue once they understood the procedural gap and that reopening the trial for this narrow purpose would not unduly prejudice the defendants.

Outcome and next steps

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the trial judge’s refusal to admit the syndic’s email, and ordered that the trial be reopened to permit the admission of the email and the examination and cross-examination of the trustee. The court did not rule on the ultimate issue of whether the retrocession would be effective retroactively, or what effect it might have on the plaintiffs' legal standing or the prescription period for latent defect claims. These matters were remitted to the trial judge for determination based on the expanded evidentiary record.

This case underscores the importance of procedural fairness in late-stage litigation and the need for flexibility when new evidence may be critical to a party's right to be heard—especially in complex cases involving bankruptcy and civil liability.