Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Relevance governs the scope of pre-trial document disclosure requested from a third party under article 251, paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
• Third-party privacy protections under Quebec's private-sector privacy legislation may be set aside where requested records are shown to be relevant and necessary to resolve the dispute.
• Courts must exercise caution before striking allegations for lack of relevance, giving the benefit of the doubt to the party advancing them.
• Similar-fact evidence can be admissible to establish a defendant's modus operandi, intentional wrongdoing, or bad faith supporting a punitive damages claim.
• Proportionality principles constrained the scope of disclosure, particularly regarding voluminous commercial flight records and sensitive passenger data.
• Allegations and exhibits drawn from separate, unresolved lawsuits were struck as premature because the truth of those facts has not yet been judicially established.

Facts of the case

Éric Bernier invested USD 500,000 as one of four limited partners — alongside Société de placements Huot inc. — in Aviation Steam s.e.c. ("Steam"), a limited partnership formed to acquire a Pilatus PC-24 aircraft under a limited partnership agreement (the "Convention") signed May 19, 2021 [paras. 4, 6]. The aircraft was intended primarily for lease to Airmédic inc. for medical repatriations, with defendants Sophie Larochelle (vice-president of finance for Groupe Huot and CEO of Airmédic) and Stéphan Huot representing that Airmédic would bear all related expenses [paras. 7, 11]. In spring 2023, following the financial collapse of Groupe Huot, Bernier allegedly discovered that no operating agreement had ever been concluded between Steam and Airmédic, that Steam owed Airmédic more than $2,000,000, that the aircraft was never actually used for medical repatriations, and that Huot personally used the aircraft beyond the 75-hour annual limit allotted to each limited partner, while Larochelle — who was not a limited partner — also used it for personal purposes [paras. 9–14]. Separately, third party Starlink Aviation Inc. ("Starlink") had contracted with Steam on July 15, 2021 to manage and operate the aircraft, including a "Charter Agreement" permitting Starlink to sub-charter the aircraft to third parties, which Bernier alleges breaches the Convention's exclusivity clause [paras. 16–17]. Bernier's amended claim seeks solidary condemnation of the defendants for $1,883,107.81 in compensatory, moral, and punitive damages for an alleged fraudulent scheme [para. 4]. Two motions were before the court: Bernier's request for document production from Starlink, and Larochelle's request to strike certain allegations and exhibits from the claim [para. 1].

Contractual clauses at issue

The Convention limited each partner's personal use of the aircraft to a maximum of 75 hours per year, on agreed terms, and stipulated that aircraft use was to be "exclusif aux commanditaires, limité et non cessible" (exclusive to the limited partners, limited, and non-transferable) [paras. 8, 15]. It also set out a flight-request process under article 3.5 [para. 41]. The Starlink Contract's Annex C, the "Charter Agreement," authorized Starlink to sub-lease the aircraft to third parties when no flight was scheduled — a term Bernier argues directly conflicts with the Convention's exclusivity requirement [para. 17].

Court's reasoning and analysis

On the document-production motion, the court applied the general principle that relevance governs admissibility of evidence at the pre-trial stage, citing the Supreme Court's guidance that article 251 C.p.c. is to be interpreted broadly to favour full disclosure, subject to proportionality and third-party privacy interests [paras. 27–29, 32]. It rejected Starlink's characterization of the request as a "fishing expedition," finding the flight-request records and related exchanges relevant to whether the aircraft was used contrary to the Convention, though it narrowed the time period to July 15, 2021–March 31, 2023 [paras. 40–43]. Starlink's claim that certain records were no longer in its possession was found insufficiently supported, requiring a sworn declaration if maintained [paras. 47–50]. On passenger identities, the court found privacy concerns outweighed by the litigation's needs for "Private" and "Ferry" category flights but not for "Commercial" flights, given their limited relevance and the disproportionate volume involved [paras. 61–66]. On the motion to strike, the court applied the principle that allegations should only be struck in the clearest cases, with doubt resolved in favour of the party advancing them [paras. 82–83]. It found press articles (Exhibits P-6/P-7) admissible given Bernier's judicial admission that they were offered only for context, not for the truth of their contents [paras. 92–96]. It preserved allegations concerning a prior judgment against Robert Giroux (the "Dossier Giroux," awarding $128 million in damages for a Ponzi-type scheme) and Larochelle's prior admissions of falsifying a bank statement and a self-assessment report, as potentially relevant to modus operandi at this preliminary stage [paras. 111–113]. However, it struck allegations and exhibits (paragraphs 36, 37, 40, and Exhibits P-17/P-18) tied to two separate, still-unresolved lawsuits concerning other real-estate investments, reasoning that their truth had not yet been judicially established and that relying on them now would be premature and could force the defendant to defend the same facts twice [paras. 121–127]. Allegations about the defendants' lifestyle (paragraph 38, Exhibits P-19/P-20) were preserved as potentially relevant to punitive damages and personal aircraft use [paras. 132–134].

Ruling and overall outcome

The court granted both motions in part, producing a split result rather than a clear win for either side. Starlink was ordered to produce the outstanding categories of documents within 45 days, including flight requests and related communications for the specified period and passenger identities for "Private" and "Ferry" flights, while passenger data for "Commercial" flights was not ordered [paras. 136–137]. Bernier was ordered to strike paragraphs 36, 37, and 40 and Exhibits P-17 and P-18 from his claim within 15 days, while his other contested allegations — including those concerning the Giroux judgment and the defendants' lifestyle — were allowed to stand [paras. 138–139]. Costs were awarded to follow the final outcome of the case, but no specific amount was fixed [para. 140]. As this is an interlocutory procedural ruling on disclosure and pleadings, it does not resolve the underlying $1,883,107.81 damages claim or award any monetary sum to either party.