Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Adam Armstrong owned a property insured by Intact Assurances under a policy in force from August 19, 2019 to August 19, 2020, and filed a claim following a fire on June 21, 2020.
• Intact cancelled the policy ab initio on January 27, 2022, citing Armstrong's failure to disclose that the property lacked electrical service, that heating was by wood stove rather than electric, and that he had omitted his criminal history.
• Armstrong commenced proceedings on November 11, 2022 against both Intact and Pilon, claiming $795,000, with the sole allegation against Pilon being that he had disclosed his criminal record to the broker.
• Assurances M. Pilon sought dismissal of the action against it as abusive under Articles 51 and following of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing the allegation was contradicted by Armstrong's own statutory examination.
• During his June 28, 2021 statutory examination, Armstrong admitted he answered "no" when his broker asked whether he had a criminal record, directly contradicting paragraph 9 of his originating application.
• Sufficient factual uncertainty remained — including incomplete evidence and unresolved context surrounding Armstrong's 2015 conditional discharge — to prevent a finding of abuse at the preliminary stage.

Facts of the case

Adam Armstrong owned a property covered by a home insurance policy issued by Intact Assurances, with coverage running from August 19, 2019 to August 19, 2020. The policy provided protection for the residence and its contents. Assurances M. Pilon, operating through corporation 6809014 Canada Inc., acted as the insurance broker in placing the policy. On June 21, 2020, a fire broke out at the insured property and Armstrong filed a claim with Intact. On June 28, 2021, Intact conducted a statutory examination of Armstrong as part of its investigation. On January 27, 2022, Intact cancelled the policy ab initio, citing Armstrong's failure to disclose that the property had no electrical service, that heating was by wood stove rather than electric, and that he had omitted or neglected to disclose his criminal history. On November 11, 2022, Armstrong commenced proceedings against both Intact and Pilon, claiming $795,000.

Policy terms and contractual clauses at issue

The central policy-related issue was the obligation of disclosure at the time of underwriting. Intact relied on Armstrong's alleged non-disclosure of material facts — specifically the absence of electrical service, the type of heating, and his criminal antecedents — as grounds to void the policy from inception. The sole allegation in the originating application directed at Pilon was contained in paragraph 9, which stated that Armstrong had disclosed his criminal record to Assurances M. Pilon. The inference drawn was that Pilon, as broker, had failed to transmit that information to Intact, which in turn invoked the non-disclosure as a basis for cancellation.

Court's reasoning and analysis

Pilon brought a motion to dismiss the action against it as abusive under Articles 51 and following of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that Armstrong had knowingly pleaded a false allegation. The court reviewed the applicable legal framework, noting that abuse may be declared regardless of intent, and that the party invoking abuse must first demonstrate summarily that the claim may constitute an abuse, after which the burden shifts to the claimant to show prima facie that the claim is not abusive. The court repeatedly emphasized that the threshold for a finding of procedural abuse is high and must remain so, as dismissal is a drastic remedy reserved for the most serious and manifest cases.

The court found that Pilon had established summarily that the claim could constitute an abuse: Armstrong's statutory examination showed he had answered "no" to his broker's question about a criminal record, and broker Christiane Pilon confirmed in her own examination that Armstrong told her he had no criminal record. However, the court identified a factual doubt warranting caution. Armstrong's responses during the statutory examination indicated possible confusion about the nature and duration of his 2015 conditional discharge — he believed it would disappear from his record after three years, and it appeared to be the broker herself who clarified it lasted ten years. The timing of that conversation was not established in the transcript. The court also noted that the record before it was incomplete, as not all pleaded exhibits — including Pilon's file and the insurance proposal — had been produced. In these circumstances, the court concluded it was premature to terminate the proceeding without allowing Armstrong the opportunity to testify and for all parties to be cross-examined.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Quebec Superior Court, per Justice Marie-Josée Bédard, dismissed Pilon's motion to reject Armstrong's originating application, finding that a residual doubt existed which had to operate in Armstrong's favour. The court did not make a final finding on the abuse allegation; instead, it referred the question of whether the claim against Pilon is abusive to the trial judge for determination on a full evidentiary record. Costs were ordered to follow the outcome (frais de justice à suivre), meaning no monetary award was made at this stage. Armstrong was the successful party on this interlocutory motion, though the matter remains to be fully resolved at trial.