Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Characterization of the action as a CNESST monetary recovery claim governed by the Cour du Québec’s simplified procedure (articles 535.1 and following C.p.c. and Loi 8).
• Interpretation of article 535.13 C.p.c. as transferring responsibility for inscription for instruction and judgment from the parties to the clerk, and confirming that the six-month delay is no longer of strict (rigorous) application.
• Assessment of the defendant’s argument that, under former article 177(2) C.p.c. jurisprudence, the CNESST’s failure to inscribe within 180 days should be treated as a presumed discontinuance or desistance.
• Consideration of the CNESST’s internal handling of the file (counsel illness, transfer of responsibility, inaction) and its relevance (or lack thereof) now that inscription falls to the clerk under the simplified rules.
• Determination that both parties have failed to fulfil their procedural obligations under articles 535.4 and following C.p.c. and the resulting need for active case management by way of a management conference.
• Absence of any monetary judgment or cost award at this stage, with the underlying claim for several thousand dollars on behalf of the employee remaining undecided on the merits.

Facts of the case

The Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CNESST) instituted a recovery action before the Cour du Québec, Civil Division, sitting in Laval, against the employer Espace dentaire MD inc. The claim was brought for the benefit of an employee, Maude Fontaine, and sought the recovery of a few thousand dollars in unpaid amounts, with figures in the judgment indicating a recourse initially quantified at 4,848.80 $ and later referenced as 5,818.56 $. The nature of the underlying amounts (for example, wages, indemnities, or other statutory entitlements) is not detailed in the judgment, but the filing by the CNESST clearly situates the dispute within the framework of Quebec labour standards and related monetary claims pursued by the Commission on behalf of a salaried employee.
After service of the CNESST’s introductory application, Espace dentaire MD inc., through its counsel, Me Simon Grant, prepared a written response. This response stated that the defendant, represented by counsel, intended to contest the originating application, to establish a case protocol, and expressly reserved the right to challenge the jurisdiction of the Court. However, that response was never actually filed in the court record by defence counsel. In addition, its content did not comply with the specific simplified procedure rules applicable before the Cour du Québec, both as to form and substance.
On the CNESST’s side, the internal handling of the file was significantly affected by counsel absences. The lawyer responsible for the case for the CNESST, Me Dugré, fell ill in April 2025. What initially appeared to be a short absence of one week was extended month by month and continued up to the time of the hearing. Recognizing that the absence would be prolonged, the supervising lawyer, Me Julien Patrat, reassigned the file in June 2025 to another counsel, Me Lafleur, informing her that the matter was essentially at the stage of having received a response from the defendant. However, no procedural steps were taken by Me Lafleur, and she in turn went on sick leave on 27 October 2025.
The file was then taken back by Me Patrat for redistribution. At that point, he checked the court docket (plumitif) and discovered that the defendant’s response had never been filed, and that the six-month time limit from the issuance of the notice of summons, which had been understood under prior practice as the outer limit for inscription for hearing, had expired on 11 September 2025. Acting out of caution, Me Patrat filed, on 28 November 2025, a formal application asking that the CNESST be relieved from default for failing to inscribe within the applicable delay and seeking an extension.

Procedural developments and arguments of the parties

Following the filing of this application to be relieved from default, defence counsel attempted to cure the earlier omission. On 17 December 2025, after the CNESST’s motion had been filed, Me Grant tried to file the response in the court record. The clerk’s office refused the filing as non-compliant with the new procedural framework stemming from the “Loi 8” (the Act to improve the efficiency and accessibility of justice, notably by promoting mediation and arbitration and simplifying civil procedure before the Court of Québec). The response did not follow the mandatory simplified procedure format. The registry provided defence counsel with a model showing the appropriate form, but as of the hearing on the CNESST’s motion, no valid, compliant response appeared on the docket.
Substantively, the defendant contested the CNESST’s application to be relieved from default and for an extension of time. Relying on jurisprudence that had developed under former article 177, paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendant advanced the theory that the CNESST had an obligation to inscribe the matter for instruction and judgment within 180 days of the relevant procedural step, that this obligation had not been fulfilled, and that no impossibility to act had been demonstrated. On that basis, Espace dentaire MD inc. argued that the CNESST should be presumed to have desisted from its action, effectively treating the claim as abandoned.
The CNESST answered that this line of argument was no longer appropriate because the file was governed by the simplified procedure applicable to claims falling within the Cour du Québec’s small and mid-range monetary jurisdiction. It maintained that, under the new regime, the six-month timeframe for inscription was no longer of strict application and, more importantly, that responsibility for inscription now lay with the clerk rather than with the parties. According to the CNESST, this procedural evolution meant that the former jurisprudence on strict 180-day delays and presumed discontinuance under article 177(2) could not be transposed to the present case.

Legal framework and role of the simplified procedure

The Court first characterized the action. Given the monetary amount at issue, the CNESST’s claim clearly falls within the jurisdictional competence of the Cour du Québec and is subject to the specific simplified rules established for such matters. Those rules are found in articles 535.1 and following of the Code of Civil Procedure and are complemented by legislative reforms introduced by the Loi 8, which aimed at increased efficiency, greater accessibility, and simplified process in civil matters before the Cour du Québec.
Crucially, the Court emphasized article 535.13 C.p.c., which governs inscription for instruction and judgment in cases proceeding under the simplified regime. Under this provision, the inscription is now carried out by the clerk, upon order of the Court, notably during a case management conference or pre-hearing conference, or at the latest within six months of the service of the notice of summons. This represents a marked departure from the prior regime, where the parties bore the burden of inscribing the matter and the time limit was of strict, “rigorous” character, breach of which could lead to serious sanctions such as dismissal or presumed desistance.
The judgment stresses that this new rule derogates from the old one in two key respects. First, the six-month delay is no longer of strict application; it is not a rigid, peremptory time limit whose expiration automatically extinguishes the action. Second, it is no longer up to the parties themselves to proceed with inscription; that responsibility has shifted institutionally to the clerk, acting upon directions from the Court, often given in the context of active case management. The Court also referred to recent case law (including Groupe Richer inc. c. Location Rousseau inc. et John Rousseau, 2024 QCCQ 4003) to confirm the interpretation that under the simplified procedure the delay is not of rigour and that the inscription mechanism has been redesigned.

Application of the law to the parties’ conduct

In its analysis, the Court concluded that the CNESST’s application to be relieved from default for failure to inscribe, and for an extension of time, had effectively become unnecessary under the new procedural framework. Because the simplified procedure assigns responsibility for inscription to the clerk, and the six-month delay is no longer a strict, fatal time limit, the concern that the CNESST’s inaction alone would cause the claim to be deemed abandoned was misplaced. The request for relief from default presupposed a regime in which the plaintiff bore the legal burden of inscription and could be sanctioned for missing a peremptory deadline; this is not the structure of article 535.13 C.p.c.
At the same time, the Court did not accept the defendant’s argument that the CNESST’s failure to inscribe within 180 days, paired with the absence of an impossibility to act, should lead to a presumption of desistance. That argument leaned heavily on jurisprudence developed under former article 177(2) C.p.c., but the Court held that this older case law was not transferable to the present simplified procedure context. The new provisions, coupled with the institutional role of the clerk, no longer support an automatic or quasi-automatic extinction of proceedings merely because the six-month period has elapsed without inscription by the plaintiff.
The Court further observed that neither party had respected their respective obligations under the simplified procedure. Articles 535.4 and following C.p.c. impose duties on both sides: the plaintiff must serve an appropriate notice and communicate its exhibits within the framework of the simplified regime, while the defendant must file a compliant response, provide a brief statement of its grounds of defence, and disclose its own exhibits. In this case, the CNESST had not fully carried out its obligations related to notice and communication under article 535.4 C.p.c., and the defendant had failed both to file its response in the record and to structure it in conformity with the post-Loi 8 requirements and article 535.5 C.p.c.

Case management orders and absence of a merits determination

Rather than penalizing one side or the other through dismissal, striking out, or deemed desistance, the Court opted for a pragmatic, management-oriented response. Recognizing the confusion that persisted among counsel as to the operation of the simplified procedure and the new inscription rules, the judge considered that the appropriate remedy was to bring both parties back onto a proper procedural track by convening a case management conference.
The Court therefore rejected the CNESST’s application to be relieved from default and for an extension of time, not as a sanction against the Commission, but on the basis that such relief was simply no longer required under article 535.13 C.p.c. and its context. At the same time, the Court ordered the clerk to summon the parties to a 15-minute case management conference. The purpose of that conference is specifically to verify whether the defendant has properly filed a valid response under article 145 C.p.c., whether the plaintiff has issued its notice and communicated its exhibits under article 535.4 C.p.c., whether the defendant has complied with article 535.5 C.p.c. by providing a summary of its defences and its own exhibits, and to explore the potential for an amicable resolution of the dispute.
Importantly, the judge suspended the computation of procedural time limits until 31 March 2026, giving the parties space to regularize the file and participate in case management. The Court expressly ordered that the whole of this step in the proceedings be disposed of without costs, indicating that neither side would bear an adverse cost consequence for this particular procedural detour. The underlying merits of the CNESST’s monetary claim against Espace dentaire MD inc. were not adjudicated, and no determination was made as to liability or the exact quantum owed, if any.

Outcome and identification of the successful party

In the result, the Court rejected the CNESST’s motion to be relieved from default for failure to inscribe and for an extension of time, solely on the ground that such relief is unnecessary in light of the simplified procedure and article 535.13 C.p.c. The defendant’s effort to transform the CNESST’s delay into a presumed desistance under former article 177(2) C.p.c. was not accepted; the proceedings remain alive, and the Court has steered the parties toward active case management through a scheduled conference and a temporary suspension of deadlines. No costs were awarded, the judgment explicitly stating that the matter is disposed of without costs. In practical terms, neither party emerges as a clearly “successful” party on the merits or even in a conventional procedural sense: the CNESST’s motion is formally rejected as unnecessary, while the defendant’s attempt to have the claim effectively treated as abandoned also fails. Because the Court has not yet ruled on the substantive claim or fixed any sum payable, there is no monetary award or quantified damages ordered in favour of either party at this stage, and the exact total of any future costs or monetary condemnation cannot be determined from this decision.