Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiff’s case was dismissed due to failure to meet a procedural deadline for setting down the matter for trial.

• Plaintiff moved for relief under article 177 C.p.c., arguing impossibility to act due to counsel’s misunderstanding of the court’s directive.

• Defendant contested the motion, claiming no impossibility and pointing to multiple prior delays.

• Court analyzed the concept of “impossibilité d’agir” and applied discretionary power under article 158 C.p.c.

• Judge accepted the attorney’s explanation as a reasonable excuse for the lapse, not a mere oversight.

• The matter was reinstated, allowing the case to proceed on the merits.

Background and procedural delay

The plaintiff, who brought a civil claim in the Court of Québec, failed to respect the court-imposed deadline for filing a request for setting down for trial and judgment (mise au rôle). As a result, under article 177 of the Code de procédure civile, the case was presumed discontinued. The court’s procedural directive had clearly set a final deadline of April 4, 2024, and no filing was made by that date.

On May 1, 2024, the plaintiff filed a motion to be relieved from the default. She argued that her failure to file was not due to negligence or bad faith but was caused by her lawyer’s misunderstanding of the procedural timeline. The plaintiff’s lawyer believed, mistakenly, that the original request remained valid and no updated filing was required. The delay in acting was acknowledged and explained through affidavit evidence.

Arguments raised and legal framework

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing that the lawyer’s mistake did not constitute “impossibilité d’agir” as required by article 177 C.p.c., and that multiple delays had already occurred during the life of the file. The court was thus asked to determine whether the plaintiff met the legal threshold to be relieved from the deemed discontinuance.

The court considered whether the facts demonstrated a genuine impossibility to act within the deadline, and if not, whether the judge should exercise discretion under article 158 C.p.c. to permit the action to continue despite procedural non-compliance.

Court’s reasoning and exercise of discretion

Justice Daigle concluded that while the situation did not strictly meet the classic definition of impossibility, the lawyer’s error—though regrettable—was not an act of bad faith or indifference. The mistake was honest and plausibly explained, and the plaintiff herself had been diligent in relying on legal counsel. The judge also noted that no serious prejudice to the defendant had been demonstrated, and the underlying matter had not become prescribed.

Invoking article 158 C.p.c., the court exercised its discretion to avoid an unduly harsh procedural result. The judge highlighted that procedural rules must be applied in a way that promotes fairness and access to justice. Since the case had not been decided on the merits and the consequences of denial would be disproportionate, the court allowed the reinstatement of the proceeding.

Conclusion and outcome

The motion to be relieved from default under article 177 was granted. The plaintiff’s case was reinstated and returned to the pre-default procedural stage. The judgment underscores the court’s flexibility in dealing with procedural missteps when supported by good faith, timely action, and an absence of prejudice.