Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Corporate plaintiff 9186-1211 Québec inc. failed to appoint new counsel within the 10-day delay under article 192 C.p.c. after its former lawyers withdrew, prompting a defence motion to partially dismiss the action.
• Evidence showed a serious fee and mandate dispute with former counsel, including a large contested bill and a complaint to the Barreau, explaining the breakdown in representation and the time taken to find new counsel.
• The court examined whether a 49-day delay beyond the statutory 10-day period amounted to negligence grave enough to justify striking 9186’s claim before trial.
• Defendants relied on the history of multiple extensions, changes of counsel and prior defaults to argue abusive use of procedure and sought dismissal under article 51 C.p.c. for manifestly unreasonable conduct.
• The judge accepted the plaintiff’s sworn explanations, found the delay not to be gross or inexcusable, and emphasized proportionality, the right to be heard, and the fact that the case was already in a state to be tried.
• Ultimately, the court relieved 9186 from its default, dismissed the defendants’ partial dismissal motion, and issued case management orders so the dispute can proceed to a full hearing on the merits, with no monetary award fixed at this stage.

Factual background and nature of the dispute
The case of 9186-1211 Québec inc. v. Giroux arises from a breakdown in a business and shareholder relationship in the insurance sector. 9186-1211 Québec inc. (9186) is a management company, and its president and sole shareholder, Martin Leblanc, is also a named plaintiff. They bring an action against several defendants: individuals Martin Giroux and Yannick Jetté, as well as Groupe Jetté Assurances inc. and 9100-4135 Québec inc. According to the originating application, the dispute follows a “litige entre actionnaires” that ended the parties’ business relationship and led to significant alleged financial harm. The plaintiffs’ claims are substantial. 9186 seeks CAD 375,000 in compensatory damages for the financial losses said to result from the collapse of the relationship and related corporate dealings, plus CAD 100,000 in punitive damages. In addition, 9186 and Martin Leblanc together claim CAD 100,000, “à parfaire,” as reimbursement of extra-judicial legal fees incurred in pursuing the litigation. They also attack a related corporate transaction, asking the court to annul an asset sale contract concluded between the defendant 9100-4135 Québec inc. and a third party, on the theory that the impugned sale prejudiced their interests in the business. The defendants vigorously contest all of these claims. Yannick Jetté and Groupe Jetté Assurances inc. go further, asking the court to declare the conclusions sought against them abusive and to reserve their own rights and recourses in response to what they characterize as oppressive litigation tactics. Although the corporate environment is an insurance and financial services context, this judgment does not involve interpretation of an insurance policy or particular coverage clauses. It is a commercial and shareholder dispute in which the main issues decided in this ruling are procedural rather than substantive.

Procedural history and representation difficulties
The file has a lengthy and complex procedural history. The action was filed in January 2020, and over the next several years the plaintiffs sought seven separate extensions of time to move the case forward. In November 2021, they were already granted relief from the consequences of failing to file their inscription for trial within the required time, allowing the case to continue despite earlier delays. By the time of this judgment, the case is “en état” for trial. The estimated hearing time is ten days, and the parties have obtained and filed a joint expert report dated 30 September 2024. The court notes that this expert evidence tends to reduce the quantum of 9186’s potential compensatory damages claim, an issue that can be revisited at a later case management session. The matter has also been called in the general roll of long cases, and the court’s goal is to place it on the calendar for a trial between September 2026 and June 2027, subject to compliance with the Superior Court’s Règles de l’audience efficace on efficient hearings. In early 2025, a new complication emerges: the plaintiffs’ then-counsel, the firm Lavoie Avocats inc., gives formal notice that it intends to cease acting. This withdrawal stems from a serious and escalating fee dispute. Martin Leblanc swears that after having paid several substantial retainers, he reached an oral contingency-type arrangement with Me François Pinard-Thériault, the lawyer in charge of the file. This arrangement was allegedly honoured in practice until the firm’s management challenged its validity, repudiated it, and issued a sizeable invoice—roughly CAD 68,691.58—after an extended period without any billing. Leblanc immediately contested the invoice and initiated a complaint with the syndic of the Barreau, while the firm tried to renegotiate a new contingency-based arrangement conditional upon payment of the disputed bill. Negotiations dragged on but ultimately failed, leading Lavoie Avocats inc. to serve a notice of intention to cease representing the plaintiffs and then to follow through with that withdrawal.

The 10-day deadline under article 192 C.p.c. and the delay
Under Quebec’s Code of Civil Procedure, legal persons such as corporations must be represented by counsel before the courts. Article 87 C.p.c. creates that baseline obligation. Article 192 C.p.c. then governs what happens when a party’s lawyer withdraws before judgment. When counsel ceases to act, the opposing parties can serve a formal notice requiring the unrepresented party to appoint new counsel or state an intention to act personally, and the party has ten days to respond. During that ten-day period, no new procedural steps may be taken and no judgment may be rendered. If the party does not comply with the representation requirements, a defendant may move, without prior notice, to have the action dismissed. Importantly, the jurisprudence holds that the ten-day period in article 192 C.p.c. is not a strict, peremptory delay that automatically extinguishes rights. Rather, under article 84 C.p.c., courts retain discretion to relieve a party from the consequences of missing such a time limit, if justice so requires. In this case, after Lavoie Avocats inc. announced its intention to cease acting, the defendants served a formal notice on 7 April 2025 demanding that 9186 designate a new lawyer. On the face of the record, 9186 did not respond within the ten-day period. New counsel, Me Charles Levasseur, filed his appearance only on 5 June 2025—forty-nine days after the expiry of the statutory delay. The defendants responded by filing a motion for partial dismissal of the originating application, but solely as against 9186, on the basis that the corporation had failed to comply with article 192 C.p.c. In parallel, 9186 seized the court with its own motion seeking to be relieved from the default of not appointing new counsel within the ten-day period. That motion was supported by a sworn declaration from Martin Leblanc, later supplemented by his out-of-court examination, in which he described the full context that led to the delay.

Evidence explaining the delay and the court’s assessment
In his sworn declaration and testimony, Leblanc outlines several overlapping streams of activity. First, he describes a prolonged and serious dispute with Lavoie Avocats inc. over fees and the validity of the supposed contingency-style arrangement. This dispute, including the contested invoice and the complaint to the Barreau, occupied weeks of discussion and contributed to the time it took for the firm to definitively withdraw. Second, after receiving the formal notice on 7 April 2025, Leblanc says he immediately began trying to find replacement counsel for 9186, contacting various lawyers between 7 and 17 April 2025 without success. At the same time, he continued trying to persuade Lavoie Avocats inc. to remain on the file despite the fee dispute. Third, on 5 May 2025, he texted Me Levasseur, attaching both the formal notice and the defendants’ partial dismissal motion, and asked for a call. Levasseur promptly scheduled a meeting for 8 May 2025, at which Leblanc delivered four boxes of documents and explained the commercial context, legal issues and financial stakes. Given that the case was already at or near the trial stage, Levasseur agreed to study the file in depth before confirming whether he would accept the mandate. Leblanc then departed on a trip to Morocco. The exact length of this trip became a minor point of contention: his declaration referred to a 14-day stay, whereas travel records showed a shorter period. The defendants also highlighted other small inaccuracies, such as his reference to a fee bill of “more than $71,000” when the actual figure was approximately $68,691.58. They argued that these inconsistencies undermined his credibility and demonstrated a casual approach to the judicial process. The court acknowledged these imprecisions but found they did not justify the strong negative inference the defendants sought. Instead, the judge accepted that Leblanc had been actively dealing with the fallout from the fee dispute, seeking new counsel, and enabling Levasseur to properly evaluate a voluminous and complex file. By mid to late May 2025, after completing his review, Levasseur agreed to act for both Leblanc and 9186, and he formalized this by filing his appearance on 5 June 2025.

Defence arguments on negligence, abuse of procedure and dismissal
The defendants urged the court to view the 49-day delay—and the wider procedural history—as evidence of serious negligence and abusive litigation tactics. They stressed that the plaintiffs had already changed lawyers four times, amended their originating application three times, and obtained seven extensions of time. They also noted that 9186 was now asking, for a second time in the same case but several years apart, to be relieved from a procedural default. On that basis, they argued that 9186 had made a “utilisation manifestement excessive et déraisonnable de la procédure” and invited the court to invoke article 51 C.p.c. on abusive procedure to strike out the corporation’s claim at the preliminary stage. In support, they cited the decision in Rupa c. Banque Toronto-Dominion, where a plaintiff who had ignored a similar formal notice for more than six months and offered no explanation or motion for relief saw her action dismissed. The court carefully distinguished that precedent. In Rupa, there was no formal request to be relieved from default, no sworn evidence explaining the delay, and a much more extreme lapse of time. Here, by contrast, 9186 filed a specific motion for relief, supported by detailed evidence and cross-examination; the delay in question was 49 days; and new counsel had plainly taken care to read into a large and complex file before agreeing to act. The judge also emphasized that the case was otherwise ready for trial, supported by a joint expert report and already slated for the long-cause roll. While the accumulation of prior extensions and changes of counsel was unfortunate and could be sanctioned later if appropriate, the court concluded that they did not justify the drastic, irreversible measure of striking out 9186’s claim at this stage.

Outcome, case management orders and monetary consequences
Balancing the explanations provided by 9186 against the defendants’ legitimate interest in efficient justice, the court held that the ten-day delay in article 192 C.p.c. was not a deadline of forfeiture and that the circumstances justified relieving 9186 from its default under article 84 C.p.c. The judge found that the 49-day delay, though not ideal, did not amount to “négligence grave ou grossière.” The appropriate and proportionate response was to allow the corporate plaintiff to remain in the litigation, rather than to terminate its claim prematurely. The judgment therefore grants 9186’s motion to be relieved from its default in failing to appoint new counsel within the 10-day delay. At the same time, it dismisses the defendants’ motion for partial dismissal of the originating application as against 9186. The court then turns to case management. It orders all parties to file, by 16 January 2026, an adjusted joint inscription for trial and judgment that complies with the Règles de l’audience efficace. It convenes the parties to a 30-minute case management conference on 12 February 2026, to be held by Teams, to refine the realistic estimate of trial time in light of the adjusted joint declaration. Finally, to ensure that the matter does not fall off the calendar again, the judge directs that the file be placed on the general roll of long cases to be called on 19 March 2026. As to costs, the judgment states that the “frais de justice” will follow the eventual outcome of the case. No damages, compensation, or quantified costs are awarded or fixed in this procedural ruling. The underlying monetary claims—CAD 375,000 in compensatory damages, CAD 100,000 in punitive damages, and CAD 100,000 in extra-judicial fees, along with potential consequences of the requested annulment of the asset sale—remain to be determined at a future trial on the merits. In this particular decision, the successful party is 9186-1211 Québec inc., which secures relief from its procedural default and defeats the defendants’ attempt to have its claim struck at a preliminary stage; however, no monetary award or specific amount in costs is ordered in its favour, and the exact financial outcome cannot yet be determined from this judgment alone.