Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Tribunal considered whether the plaintiffs demonstrated an inability to act within the prescribed deadline for preparing the case and requesting a hearing.

• Examined the plaintiffs’ lack of follow-up with their lawyer for nearly 20 months after initial procedural steps.

• Assessed the legal standard for granting an extension or relief from default under the Code of Civil Procedure as it read before June 30, 2023.

• Evaluated the significance of the sale of Dicaire’s shares and the resulting financial interest of Bonin and L.S.B. in the litigation’s outcome.

• Determined that the plaintiffs’ failure to monitor the case, even during the share sale, constituted a lack of required diligence.

• Ordered legal costs in favor of the defendant following the recognition of the plaintiffs’ discontinuance.

Background and facts
In June 2023, Portes et fenêtres Dicaire inc. (Dicaire) filed a claim against Construction SLMénard inc. (Ménard) seeking payment of more than $39,000 for goods delivered. Ménard responded with a defense and a counterclaim in September 2023. After these initial steps, the case saw no significant activity. In November 2023, Léopold Bonin and Les Investissements L.S.B. inc. (L.S.B.) received an offer to purchase all shares of Dicaire. The sale of shares was completed, but Bonin and L.S.B. remained responsible for the ongoing litigation, as the outcome would affect the final sale price according to the closing documents.

In April 2025, Ménard filed a statement of legal costs and requested the case be set for judgment on costs, arguing that Dicaire was deemed to have discontinued its claim by failing to move the case forward. In June and August 2025, Bonin and L.S.B. filed notices to revive the proceedings, which were contested by Ménard. The Tribunal had previously rejected this contestation in September 2025.

Legal and evidentiary issues
The Tribunal applied the Code of Civil Procedure as it read before June 30, 2023, which imposed a strict six-month deadline for preparing the case and requesting a hearing. The plaintiffs requested an extension and to be relieved from default, citing their lawyer’s error. The Tribunal found that Bonin and L.S.B. had not followed up with their lawyer for nearly 20 months and had not inquired about the case even during the share sale, despite the financial consequences tied to the litigation. The Tribunal noted that Bonin, though 86 years old, was an experienced businessman and there was no evidence of incapacity or other personal circumstances preventing action.

Court’s decision and outcome
The Tribunal rejected the plaintiffs’ requests for an extension and for relief from default, concluding that they had not demonstrated an inability to act within the required timeframe. The Tribunal found that the plaintiffs’ failure to monitor the case, even during the share sale negotiations, constituted a lack of diligence. As a result, the Tribunal recognized the discontinuance of Dicaire’s claim and ordered legal costs in favor of Ménard. The exact amount of legal costs was not specified in the decision. Construction SLMénard inc. was the successful party, with the plaintiffs’ claim discontinued and costs awarded to the defendant, though the precise amount remains undetermined.