Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The plaintiff's second judicial review application largely restates claims already decided in a final 2024 judgment.

• Justice Lavoie determined that res judicata under article 2848 C.c.Q. barred relitigation of these issues.

• Both proceedings sought the identical total award of $2,350,850, broken down into the same three components.
• Evidence at the hearing confirmed the Attorney General's characterization of the plaintiff as a "quérulent" (vexatious) litigant.
• Consequently, the Court dismissed the second application as an abuse of procedure under article 51 C.p.c.
• Finally, the plaintiff was declared a litigant subject to prior judicial authorization for future filings against the defendant.

Facts of the case

Claude Verreault worked as an engineer for the Ministère des Ressources naturelles from 1997. From January 2008 until his administrative dismissal on March 7, 2014, he maintained that his actual duties were those of a lawyer, a classification the ministry disputed. In November 2012, he filed a complaint with the Commission de la fonction publique (CFP) seeking recognition as an "avocat fiscaliste expert" and corresponding pay, and alleging psychological harassment. The CFP rejected the harassment claim on July 8, 2022, finding no harassment occurred. Separately, his claim to lawyer status and related compensation went to the Superior Court, where he filed a judicial review application on July 17, 2018, seeking a mandamus to be classified among the government's lawyers, annulment of his dismissal, invalidation of a criterion in Décret 14-96 (which accredits the lawyers' union LANEQ), and damages totalling $2,350,850. Following a five-day hearing in early 2024, Justice Maxime Roy dismissed all of his claims on August 14, 2024, finding he had not shown he principally performed lawyer's duties and that no fault by the ministry had been established. The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal on December 6, 2024, and the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal on May 22, 2025, making the judgment final. On August 18, 2025, Verreault filed a new judicial review application seeking to have the same Décret 14-96 criterion declared invalid or inoperative, again claiming $2,350,850 in damages, this time adding constitutional and Charter-based arguments. The Attorney General of Québec (PGQ) responded with a motion to dismiss this second application as an abuse of procedure and asked that Verreault be declared a vexatious litigant.

Legal provisions at issue

The decision turns on several Code of Civil Procedure provisions. Article 51 C.p.c. allows courts to declare a proceeding abusive where it is "manifestement mal fondé, frivole ou dilatoire" or reflects vexatious or quérulent conduct, regardless of intent. Article 53 C.p.c. permits the court to dismiss an abusive proceeding outright. Article 55 C.p.c. allows a court to bar a quérulent litigant from filing further proceedings without prior authorization, a power reinforced by articles 68 and 69 of the Règlement de la Cour supérieure du Québec en matière civile. On the res judicata side, article 2848 C.c.Q. provides that a final judgment creates an absolute presumption where the claim rests on the same cause, involves the same parties acting in the same capacities, and seeks the same object — the so-called "triple identity" test.

Reasoning and analysis

The Court found that Verreault's second application sought essentially the same conclusions, based on the same facts and the same $2,350,850 claim (split into $1,578,081 for lost income, $425,476 for lost bonuses, and $347,293 for moral and punitive damages), as his first application. A side-by-side comparison of the two pleadings showed the requested orders and damages breakdown were nearly identical. While Verreault argued that Justice Roy's 2024 judgment never addressed his claims of statutory and constitutional violations, the Court held that this rejection was at least implicit in Justice Roy's reasoning, since he had already found no fault by the ministry after considering Verreault's arguments about discrimination and freedom of association. The Court also applied Quebec Court of Appeal guidance that the bar for declaring a proceeding abusive is high, but that reopening a matter already litigated without new grounds undermines the finality and integrity of the justice system. On the vexatious-litigant question, the Court applied established criteria — including repetitive filings on the same issues, self-representation, disproportionate damages claims, and an inability to accept adverse rulings — and found the evidence at the hearing corroborated the PGQ's position that Verreault met these criteria.

Ruling and outcome

The Court granted the Attorney General of Québec's motions in full, ruling in favour of the defendant and the Procureur général du Québec. It declared Verreault's second judicial review application abusive under article 51 C.p.c. and dismissed it. The Court also declared Verreault a litigant subject to prior authorization under articles 55 C.p.c. and 68 of the Rules of Practice, ordering his registration on the corresponding registry and prohibiting him from filing new proceedings or procedural acts against the defendant, the ministry, or the PGQ before the Superior Court without the Chief Justice's prior written authorization. The judgment was ordered provisionally executory notwithstanding appeal, with costs awarded against Verreault; the decision does not specify an exact dollar figure for those costs.