Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Entreprises CAM Construction inc. sought permission to appeal a Superior Court judgment that dismissed its judicial review application.
• The underlying dispute concerns a 35-day suspension of CAM's contractor licence imposed by the Régie du bâtiment du Québec's Bureau des régisseurs.
• Judith Harvie, J.C.A., analyzed whether the proposed appeal raised a question of principle, a novel question, or conflicting jurisprudence under article 30, paragraph 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
• CAM's constitutional challenge was found to have been raised too late, since it was never argued during the fourteen days of hearings before the Régie.
• Allegations of a reasonable apprehension of bias, tied to a lawyer's change of role within the Régie, were also deemed untimely and unsupported by evidence of her involvement in CAM's file.
• Harvie J.C.A. concluded none of the grounds raised met the strict threshold for leave and dismissed the application, with legal costs.

Facts of the case

Les Entreprises CAM Construction inc., a contractor operating in exterior renovation since 1991, held a licence under the Loi sur le bâtiment. In August 2018, the Régie du bâtiment du Québec's Direction des affaires juridiques filed a notice seeking to suspend or revoke CAM's licence, citing concerns about CAM's good character and competence, numerous complaints and lawsuits against it, and allegations that it performed defective work, demanded unjustified price increases, and abandoned job sites without securing them. Following roughly a dozen days of hearings between October 2018 and September 2019, the Bureau des régisseurs issued a 224-paragraph decision in October 2019 finding serious breaches by CAM and suspending its licence for 35 days effective March 16, 2020. CAM subsequently pursued several parallel proceedings: an injunction application in Superior Court to block publication of the decision, a constitutional challenge to provisions of the Loi sur le bâtiment, a contestation before the Tribunal administratif du travail (TAT), and later a claim for $2.75 million in damages against the Régie. The TAT rejected CAM's appeal on the merits in June 2022, finding the constitutional argument and bias allegation both untimely and confirming the licence suspension. CAM then sought judicial review of the TAT decision in Superior Court; the Honourable Lukasz Granosik dismissed that application on February 12, 2026. CAM then asked the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal Justice Granosik's judgment.

Statutory provisions at issue

The case centers on several provisions of the Loi sur le bâtiment. Articles 62.0.1 and 70(2) require that a contractor and its directors demonstrate good character and the competence and integrity needed to carry on business. Article 70(12) permits sanctions where a contractor no longer merits public confidence due to complaints or lawsuits, while article 70(5) addresses the abandonment or interruption of construction work without legitimate cause. CAM also invoked article 23 of the Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, arguing the Bureau des régisseurs lacked sufficient institutional independence and impartiality, and sought to have articles 109.6, 145, and 146 of the Loi declared unconstitutional. On the procedural side, the case turned on article 30(2)(5) and 30(3) of the Code de procédure civile, which govern when the Court of Appeal may grant permission to appeal a judgment disposing of an instance — namely where the appeal raises a question of principle, a new question, conflicting case law, or an evident weakness causing serious and flagrant injustice.

Reasoning and analysis

Harvie J.C.A. explained that permission to appeal under these provisions is granted sparingly, reflecting both the legislature's intent to limit such appeals and the deference owed to specialized administrative decision-makers. She noted that the Court of Appeal is "a court of direction" rather than "a court of error," and will not grant leave merely because an error is alleged or even shown to exist. Applying this standard, she found that CAM's arguments about the applicable standards of review were not novel and largely repeated positions already argued before the Superior Court. On the constitutional issue, she observed that Justice Granosik had reasonably concluded the TAT was entitled to decline to rule on a constitutional argument raised only after CAM received an unfavourable decision, following fourteen days of hearings in which the point was never mentioned; established case law treats such delay as decisive. On the bias allegation concerning a Régie lawyer who moved to a new role within the Bureau des régisseurs, Harvie J.C.A. noted this issue was specific to the case at hand and did not justify Court of Appeal intervention, particularly since the lawyer's move occurred before the Direction des affaires juridiques filed its notice against CAM, and no evidence showed she had been involved in CAM's file. The remaining grounds, in her view, raised no question of principle, novelty, or conflicting jurisprudence, and disclosed no apparent weakness giving rise to a serious and flagrant injustice.

Ruling and outcome

Harvie J.C.A. concluded that the proposed appeal did not meet the threshold required under article 30 of the Code de procédure civile and was not in the interest of justice. The Régie du bâtiment du Québec succeeded in defeating CAM's application, as the Court dismissed CAM's request for permission to appeal and ordered legal costs against CAM. The judgment does not specify a monetary figure for these costs, so no exact amount can be determined from the decision.