Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Bregnerød Investeringsselskab APS (BI) alleges it purchased shares in Cycles Argon-18 inc. at inflated prices due to the defendants' misrepresentations, claiming $4.7 million in damages.
• Central to the dispute is the proper valuation method for Argon's shares at the time of BI's 2017 investment.
• Defendant Martin Rioux sought leave, less than three months before trial, to file an additional expert report and compel production of financial documents from BI.
• Competing expert reports were already on record — BI's Corrobor Reports (filed in 2020, updated June 2023) and the defendants' joint Deloitte Report (filed May 2022).
• The court found that Rioux was not prevented from producing the proposed DCF analysis earlier, as the necessary financial projections appeared to have been available since at least 2021.
• Allowing the late request would have caused BI real prejudice, given only four weeks would remain to respond before the September 2026 trial.

Facts of the case

Bregnerød Investeringsselskab APS (BI), a Danish investment company, alleges that it purchased shares in Cycles Argon-18 inc. (Argon) in 2017 at overvalued prices as a result of false representations and fraud by the defendants — Stéphane Mayer, Philippe Garon, and Martin Rioux. BI claims damages of $4.7 million against the defendants collectively, and, alternatively, $1 million against Rioux specifically on the basis of unjust enrichment. At the heart of the dispute is the true value of Argon's shares at the time of BI's investment. The matter was inscribed for trial in October 2023, with proceedings scheduled to begin in early September 2026 over 24 days.

Expert evidence and the late request

In support of its damages claim, BI filed an expert report prepared by Corrobor in 2020, which was updated in June 2023 (the Corrobor Reports). The Corrobor Reports used a method known as capitalization of characteristic cash flows (CCF) to value Argon's shares in 2017. The defendants filed a joint expert report by Deloitte in May 2022 (the Deloitte Report), which criticized the CCF method and opined that a discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis should have been used instead — though Deloitte did not itself perform a DCF analysis at that time, as its mandate was limited to analyzing and commenting on the Corrobor Reports. In April 2026, Rioux filed a management notice seeking court authorization to file an additional expert report comprising two components: a DCF valuation of Argon's shares based on the company's 2017 financial projections, and an analysis of any gains BI may have realized after 2017 through the integration of Argon's operations into BI's other businesses.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The court applied the framework set out in Modes Striva c. Banque Nationale du Canada, 2002 CanLII 34212 (QC CA), which requires courts to weigh several factors when considering whether to permit late production of expert evidence: the reasons that prevented timely disclosure, the prejudice to the requesting party if refused, the prejudice to the opposing party if the request is granted, the responsibility of counsel and client for the delay, the overall conduct of the file, and the sound administration of justice.

On the first factor, the court found that Rioux had not been prevented from filing the proposed DCF analysis earlier. The Deloitte Report itself acknowledged that Argon had prepared financial projections in 2017, describing them as appearing achievable based on information available to BI at the time of investment. The court noted that if those projections were available to Corrobor, they must equally have been available to Deloitte. Furthermore, BI asserted — without contradiction from Rioux — that Argon's financial projections had been transmitted to the defendants following examinations on discovery held in April and May 2021, and that those projections were listed in an annex to the Deloitte Report. The court observed that Deloitte had simply not been mandated to perform a DCF analysis in 2022, and that no one had requested the additional information Deloitte said it would need. As for the synergies component, the court noted that this theory had already been raised in the 2022 Deloitte Report, and Rioux provided no explanation for why it could not have been pursued as a line of defence at that stage or before inscription. The court characterized Rioux's application as a last-minute change in strategy, which it noted is not a recognized justification for late expert production, citing Lévesque c. Sirois, 2010 QCCA 247.

On prejudice, the court found that any harm to Rioux was doubtful given that he could have advanced these arguments earlier. By contrast, BI faced real and certain prejudice: even if it could produce the requested documents immediately, it would have only four weeks before trial — during the summer period — to respond to two entirely new expert theories. The court also noted unexplained procedural delay on Rioux's part: his counsel had written to BI in February 2026 threatening to bring the matter before the court within ten days, yet the management notice was not filed until April 23, 2026, and was only heard on May 20, 2026 — three months after that letter. Finally, the court noted that during preparatory conferences in 2024, the trial had already been reduced from 31 to 24 days, and experts had been directed to reconcile their views and file a joint report on outstanding issues in September 2024 — yet Rioux's counsel did not raise the question of a new valuation at that time.

Ruling and outcome

The court concluded that granting Rioux's requests would be contrary to the sound administration of justice. The application by defendant Martin Rioux to compel production of documents and to file an additional expert report — as set out in his management notice dated April 23, 2026 — was dismissed in its entirety, with costs awarded against him. The successful party on this motion was BI. No specific monetary amount was awarded at this stage, as the decision addresses a procedural motion only; the underlying damages claims of $4.7 million and the alternative claim of $1 million against Rioux remain to be determined at trial.