Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiffs alleged hidden defects in a property and sought damages under the warranty of quality.

• Defendants filed a motion to strike portions of the amended claim and to exclude a letter containing a settlement offer.

• The court considered whether the letter and its annexes were protected by settlement privilege.

• Plaintiffs argued the letter was not privileged and served to show defendants’ position after notification of defects.

• The court found the communication met all criteria for settlement privilege and should remain confidential.

• Defendants succeeded in having key paragraphs and the contested exhibit removed from the court record.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and dispute

The plaintiffs, Élodie Brault, Louise Pelletier, and Yvon Brault, purchased a residential property located in the municipality of L’Ange-Gardien on September 9, 2021. Believing the property suffered from hidden defects, they initiated legal proceedings in February 2023, seeking compensation from the defendants, Martin Gratton and Lisa Kellison. The plaintiffs later amended their claim in August 2024, increasing the amount sought from $52,397.62 to $92,112.

In the amended claim, two new allegations were added, asserting that the defendants had agreed to pay part of the repair costs in exchange for a waiver of the legal warranty, which the plaintiffs refused. In July 2025, the plaintiffs also submitted a new document into evidence (Pièce P-10)—a letter dated January 31, 2022, from the defendants' former lawyer, which included a proposed settlement and annexes.

Motion and legal questions

The defendants challenged the inclusion of this letter and the related allegations. They argued that the communication was protected under the settlement privilege, a rule that protects confidential communications made in the course of attempting to resolve a dispute. The plaintiffs opposed the motion, contending that the letter was not exchanged between legal counsel, did not explicitly state it was privileged, and was intended to show the defendants’ position—not to prove an offer of settlement.

The court analyzed the contents and context of the letter, noting it clearly contained a settlement offer, including a draft transaction and a confidentiality clause. It emphasized that the privilege applies regardless of whether the plaintiffs were represented by a lawyer at the time or whether the letter used specific language like “privileged” or “without prejudice.” The court concluded that all elements of settlement privilege were met.

Outcome of the motion

The court ruled in favor of the defendants. It ordered the removal of Pièce P-10 from the court record and the striking of paragraphs 7(a) and 7(b) from the amended claim. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the admissibility of the letter, including the suggestion that it could be redacted to remove the privileged parts. It also dismissed the claim that the motion was filed too late, finding it had been presented promptly after the July 2025 disclosure of the document.

Costs and conclusion

The court awarded legal costs in favor of the defendants but did not award any damages at this procedural stage. This judgment dealt solely with the admissibility of evidence and specific allegations, not the underlying claim for hidden defects, which may proceed separately.