Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• A motor fall from 15 metres injured a worker at Construction DJL's quarry, triggering a contractual liability claim against equipment supplier Manuquip for an allegedly defective and improperly installed sieve.
• Central jurisdictional question: whether the Superior Court or the CNESST holds exclusive competence over a claim for reimbursement of nearly $1 million in increased workers' compensation assessments.
• Under Article 349 LATMP, the CNESST holds exclusive jurisdiction over matters governed by the workers' compensation statute — the key issue being whether this claim fell within that exclusivity.
• Determining the "true essence" of the dispute was critical: contractual obligations between businesses (court's domain) versus imputation of accident costs under the LATMP (CNESST's domain).
• Manuquip and Simar-Dacon argued the claim was inadmissible as contrary to the LATMP's public order financing regime and constituted an abuse of procedure under Article 51 C.p.c.
• Longstanding jurisprudence recognizing that the LATMP does not govern contractual relations between co-employers was a decisive authority in resolving all three preliminary objections.

Background and facts

Construction DJL inc. operates a quarry in Saint-Philippe, Quebec. In 2019, it purchased an industrial sieve for stone production from Les Équipements Manuquip inc. In March 2021, during normal operations, the motor attachment on the sieve broke, causing the motor to fall approximately 15 metres. The fall severely injured one of Construction DJL's employees. Following the accident, the worker received substantial benefits from the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CNESST), Quebec's workers' compensation authority.

The claims

Construction DJL launched a civil liability action against Manuquip grounded in contract. It alleged that the sieve was defective and that its installation was non-compliant with applicable standards. Its claims encompassed repair costs, loss of profits due to production interruption, and — most significantly — approximately $1,000,000 representing the anticipated increase in CNESST employer assessments it would be required to pay as a direct consequence of the workplace accident (the "Claim"). A third party, Simar-Dacon inc., was brought in as a warranty defendant by Manuquip.

The preliminary motions

Rather than defending on the merits, Manuquip and Simar-Dacon brought three preliminary motions seeking to have the Claim dismissed: (1) an exception déclinatoire arguing the CNESST held exclusive jurisdiction over the Claim under Article 349 of the Loi sur les accidents de travail et les maladies professionnelles (LATMP); (2) an inadmissibility motion arguing the Claim was contrary to the LATMP's public order financing regime; and (3) an abuse of procedure argument under Article 51 C.p.c., contending the Claim was an impermissible attempt to re-litigate cost imputation decisions belonging to the CNESST.

The LATMP framework and CNESST financing

The court provided a detailed overview of the LATMP regime to contextualise the jurisdictional dispute. The LATMP establishes a collective, no-fault indemnification system for workplace injuries, entirely funded by employers through risk-based assessments resembling insurance premiums. The CNESST administers this system and, under Article 326 LATMP, automatically attributes the cost of workplace accident benefits to the injured worker's employer. That employer may apply for a transfer of imputation — asking the CNESST to shift some or all of the costs to other employers — if it can demonstrate both that the accident was predominantly attributable to a third party and that bearing the full cost would be unjust. Importantly, this transfer analysis is strictly factual and does not engage questions of civil fault or contractual liability. At the time of the judgment, Construction DJL had already applied to the CNESST for a cost transfer attributing the accident to Manuquip, but no decision had yet been rendered.

Jurisdictional analysis: the true essence of the dispute

The court applied the two-step analytical framework for jurisdictional challenges rooted in the Supreme Court's decision in Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 SCR 929: first, identifying whether the legislation removes Superior Court jurisdiction over certain matters; and second, determining whether the dispute, in its true essence, falls within those matters. The court held that while the CNESST undeniably holds exclusive jurisdiction over matters governed by the LATMP, the true essence of Construction DJL's claim was contractual — it concerned Manuquip's obligations arising from the agreement to supply and install the sieve. The CNESST, when deciding imputation transfers, does not adjudicate contractual obligations between businesses; it examines only the factual circumstances of the accident and the equities of cost allocation within the statutory regime. Relying on the Quebec Court of Appeal's decision in Air Canada c. Dominion Landscapers Construction Ltd., J.E. 85-31, the court reaffirmed that the LATMP does not purport to govern legally contracted rights between employers, even where both are subject to the statute in their relations with their own employees.

Inadmissibility and public order arguments

Manuquip and Simar-Dacon further argued that allowing one employer to recover from another the costs flowing from increased CNESST assessments would subvert the public order financing regime of the LATMP, which is designed to hold employers accountable for their own safety performance. The court rejected this argument. Consistent with a well-established line of authority — including Bisson c. Peterqueen Realties inc., [1974] CS 258, and more recently Desmarais c. HBI Experts-Conseils inc., 2025 QCCS 413 — the court confirmed that the LATMP does not extinguish contractual obligations freely assumed between businesses. The court also noted that Article 33 LATMP, which prohibits employers from seeking contributions from workers for statutory obligations, speaks only to the employer-employee relationship and says nothing about inter-employer contractual arrangements. Similarly, the immunity provisions in Articles 438 and following of the LATMP contain no immunity protecting one employer from contractual claims by another. Had the legislature intended to bar such claims, it would have said so expressly.

Abuse of procedure

The abuse of procedure argument was equally dismissed. The court reasoned that because the CNESST's imputation process and civil contractual liability operate under entirely different principles and pursue different objectives, litigating the contractual question before the Superior Court does not constitute an attempt to relitigate or circumvent the CNESST's determinations. The two proceedings are legally and conceptually distinct.

Outcome

The Honourable Justice Catherine Martel of the Quebec Superior Court rejected all three preliminary motions brought by Manuquip and Simar-Dacon, with costs awarded against them. Construction DJL's Claim — including the approximately $1,000,000 portion tied to increased CNESST assessments — was permitted to proceed to the merits. No monetary damages were awarded at this stage, as the judgment is purely interlocutory. The quantum of damages, repair costs, lost profits, and the precise increase in CNESST assessments attributable to Manuquip's alleged breach remain to be determined at trial. The specific dollar amount of costs awarded to Construction DJL as the successful party on the preliminary motions was not quantified in the judgment and would be assessed separately in accordance with the applicable tariff.