Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• At issue is whether a supplementary expert report filed by the plaintiff was inadmissible because it was not contemplated in the case management protocol.
• Disputed is whether paragraphs 34 to 56 of the supplementary report should be struck on the ground that the expert usurped the trial judge's role by commenting on the credibility of the defendant's expert witnesses.
• Under Quebec civil procedure, a case protocol is binding on the parties but is not an absolute bar to evidence not originally included, provided good reasons exist for the deviation.
• The court found the plaintiff had good reasons for filing the supplementary report, given the unresolved disagreement between the parties on the sequencing of expert disclosures.
• Regarding the credibility argument, the court held that the alleged irregularity was not flagrant or obvious, and that questions of probative value are better assessed by the trial judge.
• Costs were awarded in favour of the plaintiff following the dismissal of the defendant's rejection application.

Facts of the case

Entreprises Multiples N.G. inc. (the plaintiff) brought a damages claim against its insurer, L'Unique assurances générales inc. (the defendant), seeking an insurance indemnity of $126,650. The plaintiff alleged that on April 4, 2024, a heavy vehicle collided with its 2022 Dodge RAM 1500 TRX while it was parked, resulting in the vehicle's total loss. That same day, Narcisse Glazer, the plaintiff's representative, filed an insurance claim with L'Unique assurances. The insurer denied coverage, asserting that the loss did not result from an accident within the meaning of the policy but rather from an intentional act committed by Mr. Glazer, relying on statements made contemporaneously with the incident and on data recorded by the vehicle. L'Unique assurances also invoked alleged misrepresentations by Mr. Glazer.

Policy terms and contractual clauses at issue

The insurance policy at issue was an automobile property insurance policy issued by L'Unique assurances covering the plaintiff's vehicle. The core coverage dispute centered on whether the loss constituted an "accident" within the meaning of the policy. The defendant's refusal to indemnify rested on its position that the loss was caused intentionally rather than accidentally. Additionally, under Article 2803, paragraph 2 of the Civil Code of Québec, where an insurer denies a claim on the basis of misrepresentation, it is the insurer — not the insured — who bears the burden of proving that a false declaration was made. This provision informed the court's analysis of the procedural steps taken by the parties.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The judgment resolved two motions: the defendant's application to reject part of the supplementary expert report of engineer Danny Kack dated March 10, 2026 (the "Kack Supplementary Report"), and the plaintiff's uncontested motion to extend the case readiness deadline.

On the first issue — whether the plaintiff was foreclosed from filing the Kack Supplementary Report because it was not included in either party's proposed case protocol — the court applied Articles 150 and 232 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the appellate jurisprudence from Leblanc Robotique inc. c. Ferme Graveline (2022 QCCA 40) and Elco Motors Inc. c. Venmar Ventilation (2023 QCCA 1237). The court acknowledged that while it would have been preferable for the plaintiff to seek prior authorization before filing an unscheduled expert report, this omission was not fatal in the circumstances. The parties had never agreed on the sequencing of expert disclosures; the plaintiff had consistently maintained that the defendant should file first, which aligned with the applicable burden of proof. Because the management notice filed to resolve this dispute was never adjudicated, the plaintiff had good reasons for proceeding as it did. The court also found that the supplementary report would not unduly delay proceedings, did not materially alter the judicial contract, and would not cause significant prejudice to the defendant.

On the second issue — whether paragraphs 34 to 56 of the Kack Supplementary Report should be struck because the expert allegedly usurped the role of the judge by commenting on the credibility of the defendant's experts — the court applied the two-step framework from R. c. Mohan and White Burgess Langille Inman c. Abbott and Haliburton Co. (2015 CSC 23), as applied in Quebec by the Court of Appeal in Les excavations Payette ltée c. Ville de Montréal (2022 QCCA 1393). Rejection of an expert report at a preliminary stage is only warranted where the irregularity is flagrant and obvious, and where the probative value of the report is clearly outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The contested section of the Kack Supplementary Report addressed the methodology of the defendant's experts by reference to professional standards — specifically ASTM-E620 (Standard Practice for Reporting Opinions of Scientific or Technical Experts) and ASTM-E678 (Standard Practice for Evaluation of Scientific or Technical Data). The court found that critiquing an opposing expert's methodology is a legitimate function of an expert witness and does not amount to usurping the judge's role. Whether the ASTM standards apply to this case and whether the defendant's experts complied with them were questions going to probative value, not admissibility, and were properly reserved for the trial judge.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court dismissed L'Unique assurances' application to reject the Kack Supplementary Report and authorized the defendant to file its own supplementary expert report in response — limited to the ASTM standards issue, capped at 10 pages (excluding annexes), and to be filed within 45 days of the judgment. The court also allowed the plaintiff's uncontested motion to extend the case readiness deadline to August 28, 2026. The plaintiff was the successful party on the rejection application and was awarded costs accordingly. No specific monetary amount was ordered at this stage, as the judgment addressed procedural and evidentiary matters only; the underlying insurance indemnity claim of $126,650 remains to be determined at trial.