Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Determination of whether the settlement agreement (Transaction) between the parties should be homologated by the court

• Claim by Allain Basque that his consent to the Transaction was vitiated, rendering the agreement null

• Assessment of the sufficiency and admissibility of evidence supporting the alleged defect in consent

• Consideration of procedural irregularities in the defendant’s counterclaim and non-compliance with court deadlines

• Evaluation of the enforceability of the Transaction given Basque’s acceptance and cashing of settlement funds

• Award of costs following the outcome of the homologation proceedings

Facts of the case

On October 7, 2024, Fondation Jasmin Roy Sophie Desmarais and Allain Basque signed a Quittance and Transaction (“Transaction”) detailing the terms of Basque’s employment termination. On October 10, 2024, Basque cashed the sums paid to him by the Foundation in execution of the Transaction. On May 9, 2025, the Foundation served Basque with a demande introductive d’instance en homologation de transaction, initially set for presentation on May 20, 2025, and later postponed to May 26, 2025.

On May 26, 2025, Basque filed a Déclaration d’opposition à la demande d’homologation, which included a section titled “Requête reconventionnelle-nullité de la quittance.” In this, Basque requested the nullity of the Transaction due to a defect in consent and sought $75,000 for moral damages, $25,000 for punitive damages, 18 months of retroactive salary (August 2024 to January 2026), and the destruction of transmitted medical data. The court noted that this counterclaim was irregularly formed, not served to the Foundation, unsigned, and lacking the required judicial stamp. The court also observed that, per the terms of the Transaction, such a counterclaim would be inadmissible if the homologation request was granted.

On June 2, 2025, Basque requested additional time to produce psychological expert evidence regarding his mental state at the time of signing the Transaction. The court set deadlines for Basque to file this evidence and his grounds for contestation, but none were submitted. On August 2, 2025, the scheduled date for the hearing, Basque was absent. He later requested the reopening of the hearing, citing a panic attack at the courthouse that prevented his attendance. The court granted this request on August 27, 2025, and rescheduled the hearing for September 24, 2025, setting further deadlines for Basque to present preliminary motions, file evidence, and summon witnesses, none of which were met.

At the September 24, 2025 hearing, Basque appeared with only his cellphone, lacking copies of the case documents or evidence he intended to present. He requested a postponement, which was denied. During his testimony, Basque left the courtroom, and the hearing continued in his absence.

Analysis of the transaction and legal principles

The court’s role was to determine whether the agreement constituted a transaction under article 2631 C.c.Q., whether it was null, and whether it contravened public order. The court found that the agreement was a transaction within the meaning of article 2631 C.c.Q., as it resolved a dispute and included mutual concessions and waivers. Basque did not dispute signing the Transaction and stated in the agreement that he had read and understood it, adhered to it freely and knowingly, and was represented by counsel during negotiations, even demanding certain modifications.

Basque’s claim that his consent was vitiated due to psychological distress was not supported by any evidence, such as expert reports or contemporaneous medical notes. The only evidence submitted were screenshots of text messages and a Facebook account, which the court found irrelevant to the dispute. The court held that merely alleging a depressive state or emotional vulnerability at the time of signing does not suffice to establish a defect in consent; concrete proof is required. The court also found no evidence of undue pressure. Additionally, Basque did not seek nullity of the Transaction until the homologation proceedings and made no offer to return the sums he had received.

Ruling and outcome

The court concluded that the Transaction was neither null nor contrary to public order and should be homologated. The court granted the Foundation’s request, homologated the Transaction and Quittance dated October 7, 2024, and ordered both parties to comply with its terms. The judgment was rendered with costs against Basque. No damages were awarded, and the amount for costs could not be determined from the judgment.