Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dulce Daneyra Castillo Ortiz, a real estate developer, claims $640,000 in damages from the Ville de Rivière-Rouge arising from its refusal to issue a conformity notice required to operate short-term rentals.
• Central to the dispute is whether the city's refusal was justified, given that it later issued the same conformity notice to a subsequent buyer without the conditions it had imposed on the plaintiff.
• Contradictory evidence emerged when documents disclosed by the plaintiff revealed multiple versions of the purchase agreement with M. Patrick St-Roch, contrary to the plaintiff's sworn statement that only one version existed.
• Authorization of a re-examination of the plaintiff was sought by the defendant to clarify the circumstances surrounding the existence and transmission of the modified versions of the purchase agreement.
• Third-party examinations of the real estate broker, M. Sylvain Dupré, and the prospective buyer, M. Patrick St-Roch, were also requested to obtain evidence not obtainable from the plaintiff directly.
• Procedural issues of proportionality, proper case management, and the extension of the filing deadline were also before the court.

Facts of the case

Dulce Daneyra Castillo Ortiz, a real estate developer, began constructing rental chalets in 2021 on land within the territory of the Ville de Rivière-Rouge. By October 7, 2022, two chalets had been completed and were being rented through Airbnb. On October 24, 2022, the plaintiff listed the chalets for sale while continuing to rent them out.

In 2023, Quebec law made it mandatory to hold a permit from the Corporation de l'industrie touristique du Québec (CITQ) in order to rent a property through Airbnb. As a prerequisite to obtaining that permit, the plaintiff needed a conformity notice from the city. On April 4, 2023, M. Patrick St-Roch offered to purchase the plaintiff's real estate project for $1,200,000, conditional on her obtaining that conformity notice. That same day, the city refused the request, stating that the notice could only be issued once a third chalet was constructed and operational and a main building was built and functional to receive clients, in compliance with applicable regulations. Following this refusal, M. St-Roch withdrew his offer, and the plaintiff was also required to cease her rental activities.

On June 14, 2023, the plaintiff sold the project to 9492-6854 Québec Inc. for $560,000. She later learned, on June 15, 2024, that after the sale, the new owner had obtained the conformity notice from the city even though the third chalet and the reception building had not yet been constructed. The plaintiff now claims $640,000 in damages, alleging that the city's unjustified refusal caused the withdrawal of the $1,200,000 offer and forced her to sell at the lower price. The defendant maintains that the subsequent buyer, unlike the plaintiff, challenged the city's interpretation and prompted the city to obtain a legal opinion, following which the conformity notice was issued — though it noted that zoning regulations were not yet fully complied with and that the required buildings would need to be constructed before any rental activity could take place.

Procedural and evidentiary issues at issue

The matter before the court was not the merits of the damages claim, but rather three procedural applications: the defendant's request to re-examine the plaintiff, its request to examine two third parties prior to trial, and its request for an extension of the filing deadline.

The re-examination request arose from a disclosure made during the preliminary examination of the plaintiff on April 8, 2025. The plaintiff had undertaken to produce various documents, which were received by the defendant on May 22, 2025. Among these were emails exchanged between the plaintiff and her real estate broker, M. Sylvain Dupré. Around March 9, 2026, during pre-trial file review, the defendant's counsel identified an email from the broker to the plaintiff dated May 1, 2025, which forwarded a message from M. St-Roch dated May 10, 2023, attaching what appeared to be a modified version of the purchase agreement. The defendant requested a copy of this modified agreement. On March 10, 2025, the plaintiff provided a copy of a modified offer — but it was a version modified by the plaintiff herself, omitting the condition related to the CITQ permit, and was not the version transmitted by M. St-Roch. This was particularly significant because, during her examination, the plaintiff had expressly stated under questioning that there was only one version of the agreement with M. St-Roch and that no negotiations had taken place regarding the final agreement.

Reasoning and analysis

The court considered the applicable legal framework under the Code of Civil Procedure. Article 221 permits preliminary examinations covering all relevant facts and supporting evidence, including the production of documents. However, the right to conduct such examinations is neither absolute nor unlimited and must be exercised proportionately. Article 158 empowers the court at any stage of the proceedings to take case management measures to simplify or accelerate the process, interpreted in light of the principles of sound management and proportionality.

On the re-examination request, the court found that serious grounds existed to authorize a further examination of the plaintiff. Her statements during the preliminary examination — that only one version of the agreement existed and that no negotiations had occurred — were directly contradicted by the documents she herself had disclosed. Because the claim for damages hinges on the circumstances surrounding M. St-Roch's withdrawal of his offer, the court held that re-examining the plaintiff on these specific points was necessary to advance the proceeding. The court rejected the plaintiff's stated reasons for opposing the re-examination — her emotional discomfort with being examined and her not having the modified agreement in her possession — finding neither reason sufficient justification.

On the third-party examinations, the court applied established criteria requiring that such examinations be not only relevant but also necessary to the progress of the case, and that the information sought cannot be obtained from the other party. The court was satisfied that the examination of M. Sylvain Dupré, the broker, was necessary because certain documents — notably the modified agreement transmitted by M. St-Roch — could not be obtained from the plaintiff. The examination of M. St-Roch was justified to establish the circumstances surrounding the modifications to the purchase agreement, including all versions of the agreement and related written communications. The court also noted that the plaintiff herself had stated she never communicated directly with M. St-Roch, all communications having passed through the broker. Both third-party examinations were found to be pertinent and necessary. The deadline extension was uncontested and was granted in light of the additional examinations authorized.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court allowed all three applications brought by the Ville de Rivière-Rouge. It authorized the defendant to re-examine the plaintiff, limiting the scope to new facts arising from documents produced in response to engagement no. 7 and to the circumstances surrounding the existence and transmission of modified versions of the purchase agreement with M. Patrick St-Roch. The plaintiff was ordered to disclose, prior to the re-examination, all modified versions of the purchase or rental agreement exchanged between the parties or transmitted by M. St-Roch, along with any related communications in her possession. The court also authorized the preliminary examinations of M. Sylvain Dupré and M. Patrick St-Roch, limited to the existence, content, and circumstances of the modified agreement and related written exchanges, and directed both to bring all relevant versions and communications to the examination. The deadline for placing the case under readiness was extended to August 16, 2026, with the parties ordered to complete and file a case protocol within ten days of the judgment. The defendant, Ville de Rivière-Rouge, was the successful party on all motions. Costs were awarded against the plaintiff on the case management application; no costs were awarded on the uncontested deadline extension. No monetary damages were determined at this stage, as this decision addressed procedural matters only.