Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Appeal sought against procedural suspension of proceedings under article 32 C.p.c.

• Dispute involves a legal construction hypothec exceeding $60 million

• Parallel proceedings were split due to alleged delays by the construction company

• Trial judge ruled suspension necessary for judicial efficiency and case management

• Court of Appeal emphasized high threshold for appealing procedural case management decisions

• Permission to appeal denied as applicant failed to show unreasonableness or legal error

Facts and procedural background

CRT Construction inc. and Innavik Hydro are engaged in two related legal proceedings in the Superior Court of Québec. CRT Construction registered a legal hypothec of over $60 million against a hydroelectric power plant owned by Innavik Hydro. Innavik Hydro contested this by seeking the cancellation (radiation) of the hypothec and also claimed damages. In response, CRT Construction filed a counterclaim seeking payment for its alleged receivables.

Due to concerns about procedural delays primarily attributed to CRT Construction, the Superior Court ordered a split (disjonction) of the main claim (file 233) from the counterclaim (file 240) in November 2023. CRT Construction was denied leave to appeal that split in March 2024. As a result, both actions proceeded separately but concurrently.

In January 2025, Innavik Hydro requested a suspension of file 240, arguing that the case was not procedurally ready and that its resolution depended on issues being decided in file 233. CRT Construction opposed the suspension, suggesting instead the possibility of reunifying the files and disputing the alleged procedural delays.

Decision of the Court of Appeal

On August 22, 2025, Justice Christine Baudouin of the Québec Court of Appeal denied CRT Construction’s request for permission to appeal the suspension decision. The court emphasized that suspensions of proceedings under article 32 C.p.c. are case management measures generally not open to appeal. The court found that the Superior Court judge had acted within discretion and in accordance with guiding procedural principles, including proportionality, efficient judicial resource use, and coherence in parallel proceedings.

The Court agreed that the outcome of CRT’s counterclaim in file 240 was dependent on the resolution of key issues in file 233, particularly the existence and amount of the claimed debt. As such, suspending the counterclaim was not unreasonable. CRT’s arguments challenging the fairness of the suspension and alleging reliance on biased or inaccurate claims were not sufficient to meet the high standard required to justify an exceptional appeal in such procedural contexts.

The request for permission to appeal was rejected with costs awarded against CRT Construction.