Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Lacroix and the co-plaintiffs claim almost $6.3 million for alleged misconduct by Agence du revenu du Québec (ARQ) and its collection agent, Sébastien Saint-Hilaire, during tax audits and collection proceedings.

• ARQ sought to strike several paragraphs and footnotes from the originating application as improper legal argumentation rather than factual allegations.

• The court found that the contested allegations violated article 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires facts to be stated with clarity, precision, and concision.
• Saint-Hilaire's inclusion as a personal defendant was separately challenged as inadmissible because he had always acted within the scope of his duties.
• Quebec's Act respecting the Agence du revenu du Québec obliges ARQ to assume responsibility for employees sued over acts performed in their functions.
• Ultimately, the court ruled that pursuing Saint-Hilaire personally was abusive under article 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure and dismissed the claim against him.

Facts of the case

Jean-Noël Lacroix, Marie-Louise Monast, 9348-6603 Québec Inc., and 9425-6286 Québec Inc. brought an originating application against the Agence du revenu du Québec (ARQ) and its collection agent, Sébastien Saint-Hilaire. The plaintiffs sought close to $6.3 million in damages, alleging fault on the part of ARQ and Saint-Hilaire in connection with tax audits and the collection proceedings that followed. Before reaching the merits, ARQ raised two preliminary objections: a motion to strike certain allegations and footnotes from the application, and a motion to declare the claim against Saint-Hilaire personally inadmissible.

Legal provisions at issue

The motion to strike centered on article 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires that an originating application set out facts with clarity, precision, and concision, in a logical order. ARQ argued that the allegations and footnotes targeted by its motion were, in substance, legal argument that had no place in such a pleading. On the question of Saint-Hilaire's personal liability, Lacroix invoked article 1463 of the Civil Code of Québec, arguing that a plaintiff retains a recourse against an employee personally even though the employer must also answer for that employee's fault, and asserted solidary liability against both defendants. ARQ countered by relying on article 49 of the Act respecting the Agence du revenu du Québec, which provides that when an ARQ employee is sued by a third party for an act performed or omitted in the exercise of their duties, the Agency takes up the defense for that employee unless the employee committed a gross fault. ARQ also relied on article 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows courts to declare a proceeding abusive where it is unfounded, frivolous, dilatory, vexatious, or used excessively or unreasonably.

Reasoning and analysis

On the motion to strike, the court agreed that the targeted allegations and footnotes amounted to legal argumentation rather than factual statements, contrary to article 99, and found them unnecessary and irrelevant; removing them would not deprive Lacroix of any substantive ground of claim. On the question of Saint-Hilaire's personal liability, the court noted it was not disputed that Saint-Hilaire had always acted within the scope of his functions, and that ARQ had taken up his defense as required by article 49 of the Act respecting the Agence du revenu du Québec. The court observed that Lacroix offered no valid reason for keeping Saint-Hilaire as a defendant and that the alleged faults were directed indiscriminately at both defendants without being particularized against Saint-Hilaire individually. The court also noted that ARQ would in any event be responsible for any fault attributable to Saint-Hilaire. Drawing on the reasoning in Blanchet c. Agence du revenu du Québec, 2018 QCCS 333, the court reiterated that proceedings against employees of public bodies who act within their functions must be dismissed, since such employees cannot incur personal liability in that capacity, rendering the claim legally unfounded against them. On that basis, the court concluded that naming Saint-Hilaire as a defendant was excessive, unreasonable, and contrary to the principle of proportionality, and therefore abusive under article 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Ruling and outcome

The court granted both of ARQ's preliminary motions. It ordered the striking of paragraphs 12, 13, 27, 33, 35, and 49, along with footnotes 8, 9, 10, 11, and 14, from the originating application, and directed that the factual content of footnotes 5, 6, 7, 12, 15, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, and 27 be incorporated into the body of the application as separate, consecutively numbered paragraphs, in accordance with article 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court further declared that Sébastien Saint-Hilaire could not be personally sued in the proceeding and dismissed the corrected originating application, dated July 15, 2025, as against him, with legal costs. The successful parties on these preliminary motions were ARQ and Saint-Hilaire; the judgment does not specify a dollar amount for the costs awarded, so the monetary value of that award is not specified in the decision. The $6.3 million figure referenced in the judgment relates only to the plaintiffs' overall claim and was not addressed or awarded by the court in this ruling.