Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Prescription (the three-year limitation period) was raised as a ground to dismiss the action at the preliminary stage under article 168 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
• The parties disagreed on when the renovation works ended: Absolue claimed completion by December 8, 2022, while Martel maintained the works continued until January 17, 2023.
• Martel amended its originating application in a timely manner, adding allegations and Exhibit P-6 concerning an alleged acknowledgment of debt made in February 2023.
• An acknowledgment of debt, if established, is capable of interrupting prescription, and the alleged facts appeared at first glance to constitute one.
• Dismissal at the preliminary stage requires the claim to be clearly and obviously unfounded, based solely on the allegations taken as true and the exhibits filed.
• Because determining the starting point of prescription and the alleged acknowledgment of debt required an assessment of evidence, these issues could not be resolved at the preliminary stage.

Facts of the case

On January 8, 2026, Groupe François Martel inc. (Martel) filed an action on account against Création Stratégique Absolue inc. (Absolue) before the Court of Québec, District of Arthabaska. Martel claimed payment of sums it considered owed as consideration for renovation works carried out in one of Absolue's buildings. In response, Absolue brought a motion to dismiss the originating application, arguing that the claim was not founded in law because the action was prescribed. Both parties acknowledged that the applicable prescription period is three years, but they disagreed on its starting point. Absolue contended the works were completed no later than December 8, 2022, whereas Martel argued they continued until January 17, 2023. Martel further asserted that an acknowledgment of debt made in February 2023 had interrupted prescription.

Legal provisions at issue

The motion rested on article 168 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whose second paragraph allows a party to raise the inadmissibility of a claim when it is not founded in law, even if the facts alleged may be true. Faced with the prescription argument, Martel amended its originating application in a timely manner, as permitted by the fourth paragraph of article 168, adding allegations and Exhibit P-6 to support its position that the action was not prescribed. Those new allegations, taken as true for the purposes of the motion, revealed that on February 3, 2023, Absolue acknowledged being indebted to Martel and, on February 17, reiterated its intention to pay the sums owed.

The court's reasoning and analysis

Justice Nathalie Lavigne, J.C.Q., emphasized that the analysis of a motion to dismiss rests solely on the allegations of the originating application, taken as true, together with the exhibits filed in support. A situation justifying dismissal at the preliminary stage must be clear and obvious. At this stage, the court is not to weigh the evidence or rule on the ultimate merits of the claim; where examining the ground of inadmissibility requires an assessment of evidence, the dispute must be decided on the merits. The court found that the facts alleged in the amended application were, at first glance, capable of constituting an acknowledgment of debt having the effect of interrupting prescription. Citing the Supreme Court of Canada, the judgment noted that a trial should not be ended prematurely on a motion to dismiss unless it is clear and obvious that the claim is doomed to fail. In this case, both the starting point of the prescription period and the alleged acknowledgment of debt raised questions requiring an assessment of evidence that could not be resolved on the pleadings alone, so the action filed on January 8, 2026 could not be considered manifestly and clearly prescribed.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court dismissed Absolue's motion to dismiss, concluding that prescription did not appear in a clear and obvious manner, and ordered that the file proceed so the prescription defence can be decided on the merits in light of the evidence to be adduced. Groupe François Martel inc. was the successful party on this motion, with legal costs awarded in its favour, although the judgment does not specify any monetary amount, so no exact figure can be determined from the document.