Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Amex Bank of Canada successfully moved to dismiss Qasim Chaudry's Statement of Claim on the ground of res judicata.
• A prior 2024 judgment (file 500-32-720940-230) between the same parties involving the same disputed transaction already carried the authority of a final judgment.
• Three elements required for res judicata — identity of parties, identity of cause of action, and identity of subject matter — were all found to be present.
• Adding new monetary claims (legal costs, moral damages, and punitive damages) did not eliminate the res judicata bar, as those claims could not be disassociated from the main claim for undelivered goods.
• The chargeback issue was already raised and considered in the 2024 judgment, which concluded that Amex Bank of Canada acted in good faith.
• Amex's request to declare the claim abusive was denied, as the Court found the proceedings, though unfounded, did not rise to the level of an abuse of process.

Facts of the case

On June 2, 2025, Qasim Chaudry, an unrepresented plaintiff, filed a Statement of Claim in the Court of Québec (District of Montréal) against Amex Bank of Canada. Mr. Chaudry alleged that Amex Bank of Canada committed gross negligence by mishandling a disputed credit card transaction, specifically by denying his chargeback request without conducting the required verification and in violation of its legal duty to investigate in good faith as required of a federally regulated financial institution. He sought a total of $30,485, broken down as follows: $14,985 for undelivered goods, $2,500 for legal and administrative costs, $2,000 for lost time and opportunity, $6,000 in moral damages, and $5,000 in punitive damages. The goods at issue were graphics cards purchased from a third party. In response, Amex Bank of Canada filed a Motion to Dismiss Mr. Chaudry's Statement of Claim and asked the Court to declare it abusive.

Contractual and procedural provisions at issue

The credit agreement between Mr. Chaudry and Amex Bank of Canada contained a clause specifically stipulating that Amex Bank of Canada is not liable to the cardholder for goods and services purchased from a third party using the credit card where that third party fails to fulfill its own obligations. This provision was central to the earlier 2024 judgment and remained directly relevant to the present claim. On the procedural side, the Court considered Article 168 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which permits a party to seek dismissal of a claim on the grounds of res judicata, among others, and also allows dismissal where the application is unfounded in law even if the facts alleged are assumed to be true. Article 563 of the same Code defines res judicata and its effect on subsequent proceedings between the same parties for the same cause.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The Court framed its analysis around two questions: whether the motion to dismiss met the required legal grounds, and whether the claim was abusive. On the first question, the Court answered in the affirmative. It found that the 2024 judgment (file 500-32-720940-230) was a final judgment between the same parties — Mr. Chaudry and Amex Bank of Canada — involving the same cause of action (the disputed transaction for the purchase of graphics cards from the same third party) and the same subject matter (financial compensation of materially the same amount). The Court noted that the 2024 judgment had already determined that Amex Bank of Canada did not breach any of its obligations, that it acted in good faith and with the diligence required, and that — contrary to Mr. Chaudry's position in both files — the graphics cards were in fact delivered to him. The Court further held that res judicata is an absolute presumption that prevents a matter already decided from being re-litigated, serves legal certainty, and bars a party from raising new arguments it could or should have raised previously. The additional monetary heads of damage (legal costs, lost time, moral and punitive damages), which could not be separated from the core undelivered-goods claim, were found to have no chance of success. On the second question, the Court declined to find the claim abusive. Citing the Court of Appeal's guidance, it emphasized that the bar for abuse of process is high and the margin narrow, and that courts must not trivialize the concept so as to avoid creating a barrier to access to justice. While the claim was unfounded, it did not, in the Court's view, cross the line into abusive proceedings.

Ruling and overall outcome

On June 11, 2026, Justice David Pecho of the Court of Québec granted Amex Bank of Canada's Motion to Dismiss and dismissed Mr. Chaudry's Statement of Claim in its entirety. The Court declined, however, to declare the claim abusive. Costs were awarded against the plaintiff, Mr. Chaudry. No exact monetary amount for costs was specified in the judgment. Amex Bank of Canada, represented by Me Maggie Fortin of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, S.E.N.C.R.L./S.R.L., was the successful party.