Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The applicants challenged the Superior Court’s decision allowing the respondent to file new evidence—including a modified originating application, revised management notice, expert report, new exhibits, and sworn statements—shortly before trial.

• The applicants argued that the late filing of evidence prejudiced their ability to prepare a full defense and requested either exclusion of the evidence or an adjournment.

• The Superior Court rejected both the objection to the new evidence and the request for an adjournment.

• The applicants sought leave to appeal, alleging that the decision was unreasonable and contrary to the principles of civil procedure.

• The court emphasized the high threshold for appellate intervention in interlocutory procedural rulings and the deference owed to the trial judge’s discretion.

• The request for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs against the applicants; no damages were awarded.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and procedural context

Sonder Canada Inc. and Hospitalité Sonder Canada Inc. were involved in a dispute with Habitations le Se7t Inc. concerning the termination of a commercial lease. During the proceedings in the Superior Court, the applicants objected to the respondent’s filing of several new pieces of evidence a few weeks before the scheduled trial. The evidence included a modified originating application dated August 15, 2025, a revised management notice dated August 25, 2025, an expert report with annexes, several new exhibits, and three sworn statements with supporting documents. The applicants claimed that the late filing of this evidence prejudiced their ability to prepare and requested that the court either exclude the evidence or grant an adjournment.

Superior Court decision and appeal

The Superior Court rejected the applicants’ opposition to the new evidence and denied their request for an adjournment. The applicants then sought leave to appeal this interlocutory decision, arguing that the judgment was unreasonable and departed from the guiding principles of civil procedure. They alleged that the decision allowed the respondent to engage in last-minute procedural maneuvers and caused them irreparable harm by affecting their ability to present a full defense.

Key legal issues and appellate review

The court considered whether the Superior Court’s decision on procedural management was unreasonable under article 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court highlighted that such decisions are generally subject to significant deference and that the threshold for appellate intervention is high. The court noted that the trial judge had addressed each of the parties’ arguments, referenced relevant case law, and exercised discretion regarding the constitution of evidence. The court also observed that five years had passed since the lease termination, the declaration to set down for trial was dated March 14, 2023, and procedural disputes intensified about four weeks before the scheduled trial.

Outcome and costs

The court found that the applicants did not demonstrate prima facie unreasonableness or a rare circumstance justifying intervention. The request for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay legal costs. No damages were awarded.