Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiff alleges the sale of a home with latent defects and claims damages of $54,052.33.

• Defendant contests liability and relies on an expert witness report in her defense.

• Both parties intended to introduce expert reports as testimony, invoking Article 293 C.p.c.

• Defendant requested a postponement due to her expert’s unavailability linked to personal loss.

• The court scrutinized the legitimacy of the absence and found inconsistencies in the justification.

• Postponement request was denied, and expert evidence was admitted through written reports.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background of the dispute

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit on January 6, 2023, against the defendant for allegedly selling a residential property with multiple hidden defects. He claimed $54,052.33 in damages for these issues, which he characterized as latent defects under Québec civil law. The defendant denied all liability and contested the claim. Both parties agreed to a two-day trial and listed their intended witnesses, including expert reports. The plaintiff intended to rely on a report by building expert Alain Proteau, while the defendant planned to submit a report from her expert, Linda Hébert.

Procedural developments

After a previous delay due to court backlog, the trial was rescheduled for September 15–16, 2025. The defendant’s attorney requested a postponement, arguing that her expert, Mme Hébert, would be in France attending her late husband’s funeral. However, court filings revealed inconsistencies. Documentation showed the funeral in France had already taken place on August 21, and that the expert would actually be in Greece during the trial due to a pre-booked trip. The trip had been reserved on August 6, prior to the postponement request made on August 13.

Analysis by the court

The court evaluated the request under Articles 265 and 266 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It emphasized that a party seeking a postponement must show the absence was both necessary and the result of an unforeseeable and unavoidable event. The court found that while the death itself was indeed a valid ground, the subsequent travel plans to Greece were planned and discretionary, not unforeseeable. Therefore, the conditions for granting a postponement were not met.

Ruling on the motions

The court rejected the defendant’s motion to postpone the hearing. However, it also rejected the plaintiff’s motion to declare the postponement request abusive, finding no evidence of negligence or bad faith by the defense counsel. To ensure fairness, the court allowed both parties to submit their expert reports as evidence in lieu of live testimony. Additionally, the defendant was permitted to file a sworn declaration by Mme Hébert limited to factual observations, provided it was submitted by September 10, 2025. The plaintiff retained the right to seek cross-examination on that declaration at trial.

Conclusion and outcome

The plaintiff succeeded in opposing the postponement, meaning the trial would proceed as scheduled. No damages were awarded in this procedural ruling, and costs were reserved for determination at a later date.