Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Liability for personal injuries allegedly caused by negligent use of an accelerant during a backyard fire at the parents’ residence.
• Dispute over whether the defendant, an adult child, qualifies as an unnamed insured under his parents’ home insurance policy issued by Beneva.
• Interpretation of the policy definition of “Assuré,” including the requirement that family members “live with” the named insureds “sous son toit” on the date of loss.
• Application of article 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure on abusive proceedings and the high threshold for declaring a claim “manifestement mal fondée.”
• Conflicting and incomplete evidence regarding the defendant’s actual residence at the time of the accident, including his testimony, official addresses, messages, and a third-party sworn statement.
• Court’s refusal to summarily dismiss the action against the insurer, finding that coverage and residence must be determined at trial, and condemning Beneva to pay legal costs with the amount not specified.

Facts of the case

On 3 December 2021, Société d’assurance Beneva inc. issued a home insurance policy to Vincent Bernard and Marie-Claude Gonthier, the parents of the defendant, Mathieu Gonthier-Bernard. The policy covered, among other things, the civil liability of the named insureds and certain unnamed insureds, depending on their relationship to and residence with the policyholders. The events at the heart of the dispute occurred several months later.
On 6 June 2022, Mathieu invited the plaintiff, Charles-Israël Boucher, along with two other persons, to have a fire at his parents’ residence in Saint-Georges-de-Beauce. To start and maintain the fire, Mathieu allegedly used an accelerant, identified as gasoline. While the plaintiff was seated around the fire, flaming gasoline reportedly splashed onto him, causing him to catch fire. In the course of the incident, he fell on his left shoulder and then threw himself into the nearby swimming pool to extinguish the flames. Because of his injuries, he was transported by ambulance to the Hôpital de Saint-Georges-de-Beauce for emergency treatment.
On 23 September 2024, Mr. Boucher instituted proceedings against Mathieu Gonthier-Bernard, seeking 208,599.96 $ in damages for bodily injury and related losses arising from the incident. He also involved Beneva initially as a mise en cause and later amended his pleadings on 3 February 2025 to add Beneva as a co-defendant. The theory advanced was that, by virtue of the liability coverage under the home insurance policy issued to Mathieu’s parents, Beneva was the liability insurer for the alleged tortfeasor at the time of the accident.

Procedural history and parties’ positions

Following service of the original action, Beneva mandated counsel to file a response on behalf of the defendant, which it did. Subsequently, on 16 January 2025, Beneva filed a notice of cessation of acting in respect of the defendant. After examinations on discovery, Beneva then chose to directly contest its own involvement as civil liability insurer. On 9 September 2025, the insurer filed a motion seeking the dismissal of the amended action against it at the preliminary stage, alleging that the claim against Beneva was abusive and manifestly ill-founded.
The central factual and legal dispute is whether, on 6 June 2022, Mathieu was covered as an unnamed insured under his parents’ Beneva policy. Beneva argued that it was not the civil liability insurer of Mathieu at that time. It emphasized that he was an adult, that he did not live at his parents’ address, and that he was not a student at their charge. The insurer relied heavily on Mathieu’s pre-trial examination, where he said that between March 2022 and early June 2022 he lived with a friend in Québec City and, from early June 2022, in a shared residence on Route Fraser in Beauceville. On this basis, Beneva claimed that he fell outside the policy’s definition of “Assuré” and that any claim against the insurer was without foundation.
The plaintiff, by contrast, maintained that on 6 June 2022 Mathieu was in fact living with his parents in Saint-Georges-de-Beauce. If that were established, Mathieu would qualify as an unnamed insured, and his civil liability arising from the accident would fall within Beneva’s policy. The plaintiff argued that the question of residence was a disputed factual issue requiring a full evidentiary hearing, not something that could be conclusively decided on a preliminary motion. In his view, the record already contained multiple indications that Mathieu resided at the family home at the time of the accident, and it was therefore impossible to say that the claim against Beneva was manifestly ill-founded.

Policy terms and definition of insured

The case turns significantly on the wording of the Beneva home insurance policy, particularly the definition of “Assuré.” The policy lists the “Assuré désigné” in the special conditions and extends coverage to certain additional persons, on the condition that they live with the named insured “sous son toit.” These include the spouse, family members of the insured and of the spouse, minors under their care, certain adults under their legal care, and, separately, students or pupils at the charge of the insured or spouse, provided that the insured dwelling is the principal residence of the designated insured.
Mathieu is not named individually as an insured in the policy; he can only be covered if he falls within one of the unnamed insured categories. Since he is the adult son of the named insureds, the relevant question is whether, on 6 June 2022, he actually lived with his parents under their roof. If he did, he would be treated as an unnamed insured with the benefit of the policy’s civil liability coverage. If he did not, Beneva would have no obligation to indemnify him for any civil liability arising from the accident.
Beneva insisted that Mathieu did not satisfy the residence requirement. It underscored his own testimony that he had left his parents’ home and was staying first with a friend and then with roommates. It further noted that he was not a dependent student whose principal residence was the insured building. The insurer thus asked the Court to summarily conclude that there was no coverage and to strike the plaintiff’s claim against it on the ground of being manifestly ill-founded.

Evidence on residence and competing narratives

In assessing the motion, the Court examined not only the pleadings but also the exhibits and transcripts of examinations, as allowed in the context of a preliminary determination under article 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judge noted that Mathieu’s lifestyle during the relevant period appeared somewhat unstable and “nomadic,” with multiple short-term living arrangements and a lack of documentary proof, such as leases, to substantiate the alternative residences he described.
Against this, the record contained several elements supporting the plaintiff’s contention that the family home remained Mathieu’s residence on 6 June 2022. Official documents, including identification and records produced in evidence, listed his parents’ Saint-Georges address as his address, and he received his mail there. His bankruptcy documents, filed in another context, used the same address and indicated that he had carried on a business there between November 2020 and May 2023, spanning the time of the accident.
Moreover, the demand letter dated 26 June 2022 was sent to the Saint-Georges address, and in his examination Mathieu acknowledged having received it “at the house” by mail, without denying at the time that this was his residence. The Court also noted that Beneva itself, at an earlier stage, had accepted to file a response in Mathieu’s name, a procedural step that sat uneasily with its later claim that he was not residing at the insured address.
Additional support for the plaintiff’s theory came from electronic messages exchanged on 10 May 2022, about a month before the incident, in which Mathieu told friends “Je suis chez nous. Je me couche” and “Venez chez nous d’abord.” The Court interpreted these as references to the family home in Saint-Georges. At Beneva’s own request, the plaintiff produced a declaration under oath from a third party, Raphaël Picard, dated 4 September 2025. Mr. Picard stated that, to his knowledge, on 6 June 2022 Mathieu lived with his parents and slept at their residence. The judge did not rule on the truth of this statement but considered that, at this stage, it could not be ignored or discounted.
The insurer also argued that Mathieu’s parents had forbidden him from inviting friends and holding parties at their house, suggesting that he was not a resident. The Court observed that such prohibitions are common even when an adult child lives in the parental home, and therefore did not see this as determinative of residence. While Mathieu testified that he did not live there at the time, the judge emphasized that the totality of the evidence, including independent documentation and third-party testimony, had to be considered.

Legal framework on abusive proceedings and motion to dismiss

The insurer’s motion was framed under article 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows the court to declare an action or other pleading abusive. Abuse can arise from a claim that is manifestly ill-founded, frivolous, or dilatory, from excessive or unreasonable use of procedure, or from a misuse of the judicial process. Sanctions can include the dismissal of the claim and the award of legal costs.
The Court recalled that the threshold for finding a claim “manifestement mal fondée” and dismissing it at a preliminary stage is very high. The proceeding must not merely be weak or uncertain; it must clearly lack any realistic chance of success when the file is examined in detail. Courts must act with prudence, using the entire record but avoiding a full weighing of credibility and conflicting evidence better suited to trial. In this case, the insurer had to show that the plaintiff’s theory that Mathieu lived with his parents under their roof on 6 June 2022 was so untenable that the claim against Beneva could not reasonably succeed.

Outcome, successful party and monetary consequences

After reviewing the conflicting and incomplete evidence on Mathieu’s residence, the Court concluded that it could not find the plaintiff’s claim against Beneva to be manifestly ill-founded. The factual question of residence was genuinely contested and turned on matters of credibility, context and detailed fact-finding that only a full trial could properly resolve. Because the case was not “clear” in the sense required for a preliminary dismissal, the Court refused to qualify the proceedings as abusive or to strike out the claim against the insurer.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the motion to dismiss (demande en rejet) filed by Société d’assurance Beneva inc. The successful party in this judgment is the plaintiff, Charles-Israël Boucher, whose action against Beneva is allowed to proceed to be heard on the merits, including the personal injury claim for 208,599.96 $ and the insurance coverage issues. As a consequence of its unsuccessful motion, Beneva was condemned to pay legal costs (“avec frais de justice”), although the judgment does not specify the exact monetary amount of those costs. No damages or indemnity on the underlying bodily injury claim were awarded at this stage, and the total financial recovery for the plaintiff remains undetermined pending trial.