Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The court examined whether the amended claim against engineering firm Groupe Alco inc. was manifestly unfounded under article 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
• Plaintiffs' own expert reports, produced by CEP Forensique, ultimately exonerated Alco of any design fault.
• Sworn admissions from the insured's representatives confirmed they knew the structure needed reinforcement yet chose not to complete it.
• Prescription became decisive because Alco was added as a defendant more than three years after the building's collapse.
• No solidarity obligation existed between Alco and the contractor, so the December 2024 proceedings against the contractor did not interrupt prescription against Alco.
• Professional liability claims against engineers require specific allegations of a personal design error, omission, or breach of the rules of the art, none of which were pleaded here.

Facts of the case

This is a decision of the Quebec Superior Court (District of Roberval), rendered June 5, 2026 by the Honourable Sandra Bouchard, J.C.S., in Compagnie d'assurance Definity c. Construction de l'Avenir (1996) inc., 2026 QCCS 2364. On December 12, 2024, the plaintiffs, Compagnie d'assurance Definity and L'Unique assurances générales inc., subrogated to the rights of their insured Ferme Philippe Bolduc et fils, sued Construction de l'Avenir (1996) inc. over the partial collapse of an agricultural building on March 15, 2022. The plaintiffs attribute the collapse to a snow overload caused by a warehouse extension built by Construction de l'Avenir. On June 23, 2025, the plaintiffs amended their originating application to add Groupe Alco inc. ("Alco"), an engineering consulting firm the insured had retained in February 2021 to prepare the plans and specifications for the extension's structure. Alco moved to dismiss the amended claim against it as abusive, arguing that the plaintiffs' own expert evidence exonerated Alco, that the insured's representatives had admitted knowing reinforcement was needed yet chose not to act, and that the claim against Alco was prescribed.

Policy terms or contractual clauses at issue

The judgment does not discuss or quote any insurance policy wording or contractual clauses. The dispute instead centers on the adequacy of Alco's engineering plans and specifications for the warehouse extension and on whether those plans were followed by the contractor; no specific policy or contract language is reproduced or analyzed in the decision.

The court's reasoning and analysis

Applying article 51 C.p.c., the court noted that a claim can be declared abusive, regardless of intent, if it is manifestly unfounded, and that this determination must respect the proportionality principle in article 18 C.p.c. while remaining cautious given the serious consequences of dismissing a claim before trial. Turning to the expert evidence, the court reviewed three reports from CEP Forensique: a preliminary opinion of May 5, 2022 by engineer Olivier Biron attributing the collapse to snow overload from the new roofline; a September 29, 2022 report by Biron and Jean-Daniel Lemay finding that Alco's plans had accounted for the snow-load issue by specifying added roof trusses along 30 feet of the existing building, but that the work was not carried out as designed; and a November 2025 report by Lemay and Jean-Christophe Payment concluding that Alco had flagged the need for roof modifications from the outset and that the experts could not determine why the contractor failed to follow Alco's plans. The court held that professional liability cannot rest merely on the fact that a structure failed; specific facts showing a design error, omission, or breach of professional standards must be alleged, and none were here, particularly since the plaintiffs' own experts exonerated Alco. The court then reviewed admissions made during pre-trial examinations: Roger Bolduc, examined March 20, 2025, admitted he knew the existing structure needed reinforcing but that Ferme Bolduc chose instead to clear snow from the roof and stack potato crates to help support the structure; Alexandre Bolduc, examined December 11, 2025, admitted it was clear from the start of the project that reinforcement was required. The court found these admissions contradicted the plaintiffs' own pleading that their insured could not have suspected the risks. Finally, on prescription, the court agreed with Alco that the claim against it was time-barred, since the cause of the collapse was known no later than the May 2022 CEP Forensique report, the three-year prescription period ran from March 15, 2022, and expired March 15, 2025, while the amended claim naming Alco was filed June 26, 2025. Because the plaintiffs conceded there was no solidary obligation between Alco and the contractor, the earlier December 2024 proceedings against the contractor did not interrupt prescription as to Alco. The court cited Habitations Solid'Aires c. Blanchet, 2024 QCCS 689, for the principle that delays in obtaining expert reports do not suspend the prescription period once the cause of the harm is known.

Ruling and outcome

The court concluded that all three grounds raised by Alco were valid and that the amended claim against it was manifestly unfounded and abusive within the meaning of article 51 C.p.c. It granted Alco's motion to dismiss, declared the amended originating application against Groupe Alco inc. abusive, dismissed the amended claim against Alco, and ordered the matter decided with court costs ("frais de justice") in Alco's favour. Groupe Alco inc. was therefore the successful party on this motion; the judgment does not specify a monetary amount awarded beyond the order for costs, and no exact dollar figure can be determined from the decision.