Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The applicant sought to appeal the denial of a provisional and safeguard injunction to halt a return-to-work directive and prevent potential dismissal

• The Superior Court found the injunction request invalid due to the absence of a substantive claim

• The Court of Appeal noted that extraordinary relief like a provisional injunction requires an underlying related legal proceeding

• Appeal permissions in interlocutory injunction matters are granted only under exceptional circumstances

• The applicant failed to demonstrate such exceptional circumstances or file the necessary procedural context

• A secondary appeal regarding court costs was rejected due to the lack of a prior request for fee exemption

Facts and procedural history

Hélène Gauthier applied to the Québec Superior Court seeking provisional and safeguard injunctions to prevent her employer and union from recalling her to work and potentially dismissing her. However, the court denied her request on March 7, 2025, citing the absence of an originating legal claim—her request was based entirely on interim relief, with no substantive legal action attached. This omission made the injunction procedurally unfounded.

Gauthier then sought leave to appeal the Superior Court’s judgment to the Québec Court of Appeal. The hearing took place on June 2, 2025, before Justice Lori Renée Weitzman. None of the parties were present or represented at the hearing, having been excused in advance. Gauthier also raised a secondary claim that the trial judge had erred by not considering her financial circumstances when awarding legal costs against her.

Decision of the Québec Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed the request for leave to appeal. Justice Weitzman emphasized that the Superior Court could not have granted an interlocutory injunction in the absence of an underlying legal proceeding. The appeal court also reiterated established Québec jurisprudence that permission to appeal interim injunction decisions is only granted in truly exceptional circumstances, which Gauthier did not demonstrate.

As for the secondary issue concerning legal costs, the Court found no error by the trial judge, as Gauthier had never filed a request for fee exemption in the lower court. Without such a request on record, there was no judicial oversight to correct.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed without costs, and the Court issued its final decision on June 3, 2025, in ruling 2025 QCCA 694.