Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Power Recherche Clinique inc. filed a motion seeking both substitution of counsel and an extension of time to file its appellant's factum.
• Substitution of Me Stanley Coulanges by Me Pierre-Olivier Martel was unopposed by the respondent, Les Pavillons de Bois Franc inc.
• Delays in obtaining the re-recording (repiquage) of first-instance proceedings were cited as the primary justification for the extension request.
• The appellant requested an extension to 30 September 2026, which the Deputy Clerk found excessive given the absence of any transcription timeline estimate.
• No attestation under article 353, paragraph 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been filed by the appellant at the time of the hearing.
• Discretion remains with the clerk even when a request is uncontested, and the extension was granted only in part.

Facts of the case

On 27 May 2026, Power Recherche Clinique inc. (the appellant) filed a motion before the Quebec Court of Appeal seeking two forms of relief: substitution of its counsel of record and an extension of time to file its appellant's factum. The respondent, Les Pavillons de Bois Franc inc., did not contest the motion and left the matter to the Deputy Clerk's discretion. The appellant had retained Me Pierre-Olivier Martel of Larouche et Associés as its new counsel on 29 April 2026, and Me Martel retrieved the case file from former counsel on 26 May 2026. The underlying appeal arises from proceedings bearing docket number 500-17-123809-231.

Procedural steps and delay in obtaining transcripts

On 19 May 2026, Me Martel submitted a request for the re-recording (repiquage) of the first-instance proceedings, at which point he was informed that current wait times were measured not in days or weeks, but in months. The appellant sought an extension of the filing deadline to 30 September 2026 — an additional three months and twenty-five days beyond the existing deadline. At the time of the 10 June 2026 hearing, the appellant had also not yet filed the attestation required under article 353, paragraph 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When questioned on this, Me Martel undertook to file the attestation by 17 June 2026.

Reasoning and analysis

Deputy Clerk Pénélope Larouche confirmed that the absence of contestation does not relieve a clerk of the obligation to exercise independent discretion in granting a reasonable delay, citing Dow c. Main, 2020 QCCA 978. On the substitution request, she noted that a simple notice of substitution under article 194 of the Code of Civil Procedure would have sufficed, but given the respondent's non-opposition, the substitution was granted. On the extension, she acknowledged that the need to obtain transcriptions is a recognized basis for granting additional time, as affirmed in Vitec SA c. Haivision Systems inc., 2025 QCCA 921, Droit de la famille — 241501, 2024 QCCA 1275, and 9233-0653 Québec inc. c. Capital Transit inc., 2021 QCCA 1599. However, she found the requested extension excessive: it exceeded the standard three-month period provided by article 373 of the Code of Civil Procedure for filing a factum, and the appellant had provided no estimate of the time a stenographer would need to transcribe the two days of hearings once the re-recording was obtained, nor any estimate of the time needed to complete the factum thereafter.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Deputy Clerk granted the motion in part. She authorized the substitution of Me Stanley Coulanges by Me Pierre-Olivier Martel of Larouche et Associés as counsel for the appellant, and extended the deadline for notification and filing of the appellant's factum to 1 September 2026 — shorter than the 30 September 2026 date requested. She also took note of Me Martel's undertaking to file the required article 353 attestation by 17 June 2026. The motion was granted partially in favour of the appellant, with no costs ordered against either party.