Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The defendant asked the court to authorize a supplementary employability expert report that was not included in the three case-management protocols already agreed upon by the parties.

• Courts treat a request for additional expert evidence made after the protocol deadline as an exceptional measure that must satisfy both relevance and necessity.

• Judge Bouchard concluded that the defendant did not demonstrate the employability report was necessary to resolve the dispute.
• Plaintiff's age of 67 and her profession as a physician significantly reduced the usefulness of an employability assessment.
• Four expert reports for the defendant were already provided for in the last joint protocol, covering nursing care, plastic surgery and peripheral nerves, occupational therapy, and actuarial science.
• No new circumstances were presented to justify adding a further expert report at this late stage of the proceedings.

Facts of the case

Suzanne Dufour, a 67-year-old physician, sued CIUSSS du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean for medical liability. She alleges a nerve injury to her right arm that prevents her from continuing to practice medicine. The file has been open since June 2024, and her inability to return to work has been raised since that time. Three case-management protocols had already been agreed upon between the parties. During the preparation of its case, the defendant's plastic surgery expert noted that Dufour retained some residual work capacity, subject to certain restrictions. Based on this, the defendant asked the court for permission to obtain a supplementary expert report on Dufour's employability — a step not contemplated in any of the existing protocols.

Protocols and case-management terms at issue

Rather than contractual or insurance clauses, the dispute centered on the parties' case-management protocol, which already provided for four expert reports on the defendant's behalf: nursing care, plastic surgery and peripheral nerves, occupational therapy, and actuarial science. The defendant sought to add a fifth report on employability outside this agreed framework. No policy or contractual clauses were at issue in this judgment.

Reasoning and analysis

The court held that authorizing an additional expert report after the protocol deadline is an exceptional measure that must be justified by circumstances showing both the relevance and the necessity of the evidence, consistent with the principles of proportionality and sound case management. The defendant did not establish that the employability report was necessary to resolve the dispute. The court noted that Dufour's age and profession at the relevant time considerably reduced the usefulness of any expert opinion on her future employability, and that the court would be able to understand her professional and personal situation without such a late-requested report. The court also observed that when the defendant previously sought an extension of the registration deadline in March, its representative raised no concerns about the need for this type of expertise, and the defendant provided no new circumstances justifying the request at this stage.

Ruling and outcome

The court dismissed the defendant's application for authorization to produce a supplementary employability expert report, making the plaintiff, Suzanne Dufour, the successful party on this motion. No monetary amount was awarded or specified in this decision, as it addressed only the procedural question of expert evidence; the judgment states that legal costs ("frais de justice") will follow the outcome on the merits of the underlying case. The court also extended the deadline for registration for hearing and judgment to July 15, 2026, to account for the delay caused by dealing with this request.