Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Defendants sought a declaration of partial inadmissibility against the plaintiffs' introductory application under article 168(2) C.p.c.
• Defendants argued the plaintiffs' claim was mischaracterized as a declaratory judgment when it actually sought judicial review under article 34 C.p.c.
• Timing became a contested issue, with defendants alleging the claim was filed roughly 1,806 days after the contested decision.
• Judicial review powers cannot substitute the court's judgment for decisions made by a private legal entity's competent governing bodies.
• Caution governs inadmissibility motions, and courts must avoid prematurely ending a trial when there is uncertainty.
• Ultimately, the court found the plaintiffs' recourse could not be characterized, prima facie, as clearly frivolous or unfounded.

Facts of the case

Xavier Néron and Nancy Potvin, members of Club de voile Au Grand Largue (1982) inc. ("the Club"), own a chalet built on land the Club leases from Société immobilière Alcan limitée (SIAL). Other Club members, including co-defendant Gérald Tremblay, also own chalets on the same land for recreational use. In 2020, the plaintiffs submitted an expansion project for their chalet to the Club's board of directors, which was refused on August 17, 2020, due to concerns about the number of floors and the size of the proposed structure. The plaintiffs submitted numerous subsequent proposals between 2020 and 2024, all of which were rejected. The proposed work could also require dismantling certain installations belonging to Gérald Tremblay. The plaintiffs claimed the rejections were based on partial considerations and the personal interests of certain members, amounting to discrimination.

Policy terms or contractual clauses at issue

Under article 27.4 of the Club's general bylaws adopted in 2015, renovation, construction, or expansion projects had to be submitted to the Club's board, then to SIAL, and finally to the Municipality of Métabetchouan-Lac-à-la-Croix. At a general meeting on June 26, 2021, the Club proposed amending its bylaws, repealing article 27.4 and replacing it with more restrictive provisions creating a more complex approval process. These amended bylaws were adopted at a special meeting on September 7, 2022. The plaintiffs argued the lease between the Club and SIAL contains no such construction restrictions, requiring only that the Club comply with applicable laws and obtain necessary permits. They further claimed the 2022 bylaws improperly infringed the right to peaceful enjoyment and free disposal of property under the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and sought to have articles 27.4 to 27.10 and Schedule 2 declared inapplicable to their project or, alternatively, annulled as illegal and discriminatory.

Reasoning and analysis

The defendants moved to have two specific conclusions of the plaintiffs' claim declared inadmissible, arguing the relief sought was actually judicial review in disguise and that judicial review could not be used to override decisions made by a private corporation's competent governing bodies, and that the claim was filed unreasonably late. The court applied the principles set out in Bohémier c. Barreau du Québec, 2012 QCCA 308, confirming that allegations in the introductory application must be taken as true, that the court need not assess the merits or chances of success at this preliminary stage, and that inadmissibility should only be found where the legal situation is "clear and unambiguous." The court noted that the inadmissibility motion covered only part of the conclusions sought, meaning a contested hearing would proceed regardless, which reduced the urgency of resolving the characterization question early. The court found it would be premature to conclude the criteria for a declaratory judgment under article 142 C.p.c., including the existence of a genuine difficulty, were not met. Citing a 2022 decision from Justice Vaillancourt, the court reiterated that legal questions raised in a declaratory judgment application should not be resolved at the inadmissibility stage unless the recourse is "very clearly frivolous and unfounded." The court also declined to characterize the relief sought as judicial review or to rule on whether the delay was unreasonable, finding the allegations as drafted required more nuanced treatment that the trial judge, after hearing all the evidence, would be better positioned to address.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court concluded that the facts alleged, taken as true, were capable of supporting the conclusions sought, at least in part, and that the plaintiffs' recourse could not be deemed clearly frivolous or unfounded. The Honourable Sandra Bouchard, J.C.S., dismissed the defendants' motion for partial inadmissibility, ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, Xavier Néron and Nancy Potvin, with costs to follow on the merits. As this is a preliminary procedural ruling rather than a final judgment, no monetary amount was awarded at this stage; the underlying claim for $195,000 plus interest remains to be determined at trial.