Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• This case involves a claim by Annie Bérubé for partition and unjust enrichment against Simon Murray and his company, 9126-5918 Québec inc. (Colicam).
• Central to the dispute is whether Bérubé is entitled to proceed with an accounting expert assessment covering the fair market value of shares in the defendant company and the value of work she performed during the parties' cohabitation.
• Defendants filed a motion for forfeiture (demande en forclusion), arguing that procedural delays should bar Bérubé from conducting the planned expert assessment.
• Natural justice principles were at issue, specifically whether precluding the expert assessment would deprive Bérubé of a fair hearing.
• Prior procedural history includes a February 25, 2026 order by Justice Poulin relieving Bérubé of her default and permitting her to file a joint declaration for trial inscription within six months.
• Mallette (services-conseils) was confirmed as the expert retained to conduct the accounting assessment, as evidenced by exhibit P-23.

Facts of the case

Annie Bérubé commenced proceedings against Simon Murray and his company, 9126-5918 Québec inc. (operating as Transport Colicam), seeking partition and compensation for unjust enrichment. The case has been marked by procedural complications, delays, and multiple interlocutory steps. On February 25, 2026, Justice Stéphane Poulin issued an order relieving Bérubé of her default for failing to file a joint application for trial inscription and granting her six months from the subsequent judgment to do so. The parties were also ordered to file an amended case protocol by March 6, 2026.

Policy terms or contractual clauses at issue

No specific contract or policy clause is at the center of this particular decision. The expert mandate at issue, however, is defined by the scope set out in exhibit P-23 — a confirmation from Mallette (services-conseils) accepting the retainer to produce an expert report establishing, in particular, the fair market value of all outstanding shares of 9126-5918 Québec inc. (Transport Colicam). Bérubé's counsel also indicated that the expert assessment would encompass an evaluation of the work Bérubé performed for the defendant company during the parties' life together.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The court rejected the defendants' motion for forfeiture outright, finding no basis to bar Bérubé from conducting the announced expert assessment. Justice Francoeur noted that it is not straightforward to retain a qualified expert, properly define the mandate, and that such an assessment would only allow the case to be heard more rigorously. Preventing the expert assessment — by declaring Bérubé to have forfeited the right — would run contrary to the principles of natural justice. While the court acknowledged that delays must be properly managed, it focused on the path forward rather than revisiting past procedural missteps.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court ruled in favor of Bérubé on the procedural motion. Justice Serge Francoeur dismissed the defendants' motion for forfeiture, authorized Bérubé to proceed with the expert assessment within the parameters of exhibit P-23 (including, where applicable, an evaluation of the value or equity of the work she claims to have performed in the defendant company), and ordered the retained expert to file a progress report, work schedule, and projected submission date by July 9, 2026. The matter was adjourned to July 9, 2026 for elaboration of a judicial schedule covering upcoming steps, including a potential counter-expertise. No monetary award or damages were granted at this stage; the decision is interlocutory in nature.