Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Characterization of APG inc.’s attempt to add APG Airlines SAS as a co-plaintiff—either as a bona fide correction of party designation or as an impermissible revival of a prescribed claim.
• Impact of prescription (limitation periods) on the ability of APG Airlines SAS to be added as a party several years after the institution of proceedings.
• Scope of a case management judge’s discretion to allow amendments while deferring prescription and irreceivability issues to the trial judge on an incomplete evidentiary record.
• Application of articles 31 and 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure to determine whether an interlocutory decision warrants leave to appeal based on “prejudice irrémédiable” or alleged unreasonable case management.
• Legal principle that an amendment to pleadings cannot revive rights that are already prescribed, even if the amendment is allowed.
• Question whether deferring the prescription issue to trial could itself create irreparable prejudice to IATA, and the Court of Appeal’s rejection of that argument.

Facts of the case
APG inc. instituted a civil action in 2021 before the Superior Court of Québec against the International Air Transport Association (IATA). In that action, APG inc. alleges that IATA was negligent in the exercise of its mandate to supervise a third-party company that has since gone bankrupt. APG inc. claims to be subrogated in the rights of a number of airlines and seeks to hold IATA liable for losses arising from that alleged supervisory negligence.
Several years after filing its originating application, APG inc. sought to amend its proceedings to add APG Airlines SAS as a co-plaintiff. APG Airlines SAS is described as a subsidiary of APG inc.; both entities share the same head office and accounting team, though their shareholding is not identical. APG inc. had initially proceeded on the basis that it was subrogated in the rights of APG Airlines SAS, as it was for ten other airlines whose claims it was pursuing. The amendment request was presented as a good-faith correction of party designation rather than a substantive expansion of the claim.
IATA opposed the amendment vigorously. It argued that the move was not a simple rectification but an attempt to revive the independent rights of APG Airlines SAS at a time when those rights were already prescribed. From IATA’s standpoint, adding APG Airlines SAS as a co-plaintiff years into the litigation would circumvent limitation rules by effectively resurrecting a time-barred cause of action.

Procedural history and amendment decision
The amendment request came before a judge of the Superior Court (Larocque J.). The judge noted that the file was not yet ready for trial and that the proposed amendment would not unduly delay the conduct of the proceedings. He also observed that the dispute had, in substance, always encompassed the claim relating to APG Airlines SAS, so that the amendment did not complicate the issues already in play. On that basis, he concluded that the usual criteria for allowing amendments appeared to be met.
However, the judge adopted a cautious approach because of the prescription argument raised by IATA. While APG inc. had been examined and given the opportunity to explain the alleged good-faith error concerning the designation of parties, there had not yet been a full evidentiary airing of the prescription issue. The judge therefore allowed the amendment, but only “for the continuation of the instance,” explicitly deferring the determination of its validity in light of prescription to the trial judge. In other words, he left open whether the claim of APG Airlines SAS was time-barred and whether the amendment could stand once the evidence on prescription was fully developed.

Leave to appeal request before the Court of Appeal
IATA sought leave to appeal this interlocutory decision to the Québec Court of Appeal. Relying on articles 31 and 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, IATA contended that the Superior Court had effectively spared APG inc. the burden of proving that APG Airlines SAS’s claim was not prescribed as a condition of amendment. According to IATA, the interlocutory judgment partially decided the dispute and caused it “prejudice irrémédiable” because, by sending the prescription issue to the trial, it placed on IATA the onus of demonstrating that APG Airlines SAS’s claim was prescribed.
IATA further argued that the judge’s refusal to definitively rule on prescription at the amendment stage was an unreasonable exercise of case management discretion and contrary to article 32 C.C.P. It maintained that the decision to allow the amendment for continuation of the instance alone undermined the principles governing efficient and proportionate case management.

Legal reasoning of the Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal found that IATA’s arguments, though skillfully presented, did not meet the strict statutory threshold for leave to appeal interlocutory judgments. It stressed that the first-instance judge had not finally resolved the prescription issue; instead, he had expressly decided not to rule on it definitively in light of an incomplete evidentiary record. By sending the matter to the trial judge, he left open any outcome on prescription after a full hearing of the evidence.
In assessing whether there was “prejudice irrémédiable” under article 31 C.C.P., the Court of Appeal emphasized a fundamental principle: even where an amendment is formally allowed, it cannot revive rights that are already prescribed. The jurisprudence, including authorities such as Willmor Discount Corp. v. Vaudreuil (Ville), Soeurs du Bon-pasteur de Québec v. Banque royale du Canada, and 9240-8434 Québec inc. v. Beterbiev, clearly establishes that a procedural amendment does not breathe life into a time-barred claim. Because of this principle, the mere fact that the amendment was allowed to permit the instance to continue could not, in itself, create irreparable prejudice to IATA.
The Court thus held that, even if one were to assume there was some error in how the Superior Court judge handled the amendment and prescription interplay, the criteria for leave to appeal under article 31 C.C.P. clearly were not satisfied. The alleged harm did not rise to the level of irreparable prejudice contemplated by the statute. For the same reasons, if the judgment were instead characterized as a case management decision under article 32 C.C.P., it could not be considered unreasonable: the judge’s cautious deferral of the prescription question to trial fell within the bounds of permissible discretion.

Policy terms and clauses at issue
The decision does not deal with insurance policies or contractual policy wordings in the sense of specific coverage clauses or exclusions. Instead, the “text” at issue consists of procedural norms under the Québec Code of Civil Procedure. Articles 31 and 32 C.C.P. shape the framework of interlocutory appeals and case management discretion—essentially governing when, and under what conditions, a party may seek appellate intervention before final judgment, and how trial judges manage amendments and procedural steps.
The discussion of limitation periods is anchored in civil law principles of prescription rather than in contractual limitation clauses. The Court reiterates the doctrinal and jurisprudential rule that a procedural amendment cannot be used to circumvent prescription: if a claim is already prescribed, adding or correcting a party will not retroactively cure that defect. That rule functions much like a hard “time bar” clause in a policy, but it arises from the law of prescription rather than from the terms of a written policy.

Outcome and successful party
In its conclusion, the Québec Court of Appeal rejects IATA’s application for leave to appeal and orders it to pay costs. The Court holds that the impugned interlocutory decision does not cause IATA irreparable prejudice, that the prescription issue remains open for the trial judge to decide on a fuller evidentiary record, and that the amendment allowing APG Airlines SAS to be added as co-plaintiff cannot, as a matter of law, revive any prescribed rights. As a result, APG inc., as the respondent to the leave application, is the successful party at this appellate stage, with IATA’s request for permission to appeal dismissed and costs awarded against it. The judgment does not, however, specify any exact monetary amount for costs or damages, so the total amount ordered in favor of APG inc. cannot be determined from this decision alone.