Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Whether the law firm Therrien Couture Joli-Cœur S.E.N.C.R.L. (TCJ) should be declared disqualified ("inhabile") from representing the Syndicat des Copropriétaires du Manoir du Vieux Port.
• Simon Bégin and Gestion Simon Bégin inc. alleged that Mr. Bégin previously received personal legal advice from TCJ and communicated confidential information, creating a conflict of interest and an undue advantage.
• Central to the analysis was whether a prior personal lawyer-client relationship existed between TCJ and Mr. Bégin, and whether confidential information relevant to the litigation was transmitted.
• Documentary evidence — including the April 2, 2024 consultation request through the RGCQ and the mandate agreement signed April 24, 2024 — identified the Syndicat, not Mr. Bégin personally, as the client.
• Under article 193 of the Code of Civil Procedure and appellate case law, disqualification requires convincing proof of a real and serious cause, beyond a mere risk or possibility.
• Balancing the right to counsel of one's choice against the integrity of the justice system, the Court found no grounds to remove the Syndicat's chosen firm.

Facts of the case

The Syndicat des Copropriétaires du Manoir du Vieux Port sued Simon Bégin, former president of its board of directors, and his company, Gestion Simon Bégin inc., seeking restitution of funds and payment of compensatory and punitive damages. The Syndicat alleges that on May 2, 2024, Mr. Bégin entered into a five-year management contract with his own company while the board no longer had the required quorum and was in a conflict-of-interest situation, and that he retained exclusive control of the co-ownership's bank accounts and registers for several months before transferring sums totalling $46,952.90 to his benefit or that of his company. It claims a further $10,000 in punitive damages, invoking bad faith, fraud, and abuse of right. The defendants contest the claim, maintaining that the sums correspond to fees and expenses incurred under the management contract, and counterclaim $48,958.84 for unpaid fees and expenses. This judgment, however, does not decide the merits. The only question before the Court of Québec was the defendants' motion to have the law firm Therrien Couture Joli-Cœur S.E.N.C.R.L. (TCJ) declared disqualified from representing the Syndicat, on the basis that Mr. Bégin had previously received personal legal advice from that firm and had communicated confidential information to it, notably concerning conflicts of interest, a question at the heart of the dispute.

Prior consultations and provisions at issue

The evidence showed that a legal consultation request was sent to TCJ on April 2, 2024 by the Regroupement des gestionnaires et copropriétaires du Québec (RGCQ), an organization offering its members a free thirty-minute annual legal consultation. The request identified the member as "Simon Bégin, vice-président chez SDC Manoir-du-Vieux-Port," with the subject "Responsabilité des administrateurs / Respect de la déclaration." A telephone consultation of 20 to 30 minutes took place on April 3, 2024 with Me Kai Lun Zhang, who afterwards wrote to an associate that the Syndicat would open a consultation file concerning directors' responsibilities and obligations. A formal mandate followed on April 23, 2024, and the mandate agreement signed April 24, 2024 expressly identified the client as the Syndicat, represented by Simon Bégin; it covered governance questions, the holding of a special general meeting, steps with the financial institution, and issues relating to a resigning director. The legal framework governing the motion included article 193 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows a lawyer to be set aside where there is a conflict of interest or where confidential information has been or may be transmitted, together with the duty of loyalty and the obligation to avoid conflicts of interest under the Code of ethics of advocates.

The court's reasoning and analysis

Justice Nathalie Lavigne recalled that the right of a party to be represented by counsel of its choice is a fundamental value of the justice system that can only be set aside for serious and compelling reasons, and that, per the Court of Appeal in Carrier c. Mayaux, 2025 QCCA 542 and Axamit Digital inc. c. Kulikou, 2026 QCCA 482, disqualification requires convincing proof of a real and serious cause exceeding a mere risk or possibility. The central question was whether the defendants had demonstrated a prior personal lawyer-client relationship between TCJ and Mr. Bégin and the communication of confidential information usable in the litigation. The Court found that this proof had not been established. Documents contemporaneous with the events showed that TCJ's interventions were for the Syndicat, with Mr. Bégin acting only as its representative or director; nothing suggested he sought personal legal advice or that a dispute then opposed him to the Syndicat. The consultations concerned internal governance and the consequences of the resignations of two directors on April 12 and 13, 2024, which had reduced the board to two members — Simon Bégin and Roger Lamy — depriving it of quorum, and were unrelated to the management contract concluded on May 2, 2024; according to the evidence, TCJ's lawyers were only informed of that contract's existence on August 26, 2024. Me Omar Kreim affirmed under oath that all his dealings with Mr. Bégin occurred exclusively within the Syndicat's mandate and that he never received information related to the present litigation, and no convincing contrary evidence was adduced. Me Zhang, for her part, left TCJ on July 9, 2025, and no exchange or transfer of information likely to prejudice Mr. Bégin took place. Citing Succession MacDonald c. Martin, [1990] 3 R.C.S. 1235, the Court balanced the right to counsel of choice against the high standards of the legal profession and the integrity of the judicial system, and concluded that nothing justified setting aside the firm chosen by the Syndicat.

Ruling and outcome

For these reasons, the Tribunal dismissed the defendants' motion for a declaration of disqualification of the TCJ firm, allowing the Syndicat des Copropriétaires du Manoir du Vieux Port to keep its chosen counsel. As the successful party on this motion, the Syndicat was awarded legal costs ("frais de justice") against the defendants, though the judgment does not specify any dollar amount for those costs, and no other monetary award was made at this stage, since the merits of the underlying claims — including the $46,952.90 restitution claim, the $10,000 in punitive damages, and the defendants' $48,958.84 counterclaim — remain to be decided.