Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Quebec Court of Appeal considered whether to grant leave to appeal an interlocutory judgment of the Superior Court.

• That underlying judgment had allowed the respondents' opposition to an amendment the applicant sought to make to its cross-demand.

• Central to the dispute is a construction project in which the respondent Sandro Mauro seeks half of the profits generated.

• Rixton argued it would suffer irreparable harm if barred from advancing its own claim for reimbursement of half the project expenses.

• Justice Bachand found the applicant's grounds of appeal to be serious and consistent with the guiding principles of civil procedure.

• No stay of the Superior Court proceedings was ordered, as both parties agreed none was necessary.
   

Facts of the case

The applicant, Les Entreprises Rixton inc., sought leave to appeal a judgment rendered during the proceedings on May 22, 2026 by the Honourable David R. Collier of the Superior Court, District of Montreal. That judgment had allowed the opposition raised by the respondents — Sandro Mauro, Mauro Homes Construction Inc., and Sandro Mauro in his capacity as trustee of Senna Trust — to an amendment Rixton wished to make to its cross-demand. The dispute arises from a construction project, with Mauro seeking to be awarded half of the profits it generated. Rixton, for its part, wanted to advance its own claim for reimbursement of half of the expenses it incurred on that same project. The hearing on the application for leave was held on July 9, 2026, continuing from a session on July 7, 2026, with the parties excused from appearing in person.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The application was brought under articles 31, paragraph 2, and 357 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which govern applications for leave to appeal interlocutory judgments. In setting the timelines for the parties' factums, Justice Bachand also relied on articles 13 and 58 of the Regulation of the Court of Appeal in civil matters (R.C.a.Q.m.civ.) and Registrar's Notice No. 3, which prescribe page limits and procedural requirements for appellate submissions.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Bachand accepted that the Superior Court's judgment caused Rixton irreparable harm as a party to the proceedings. Specifically, the judgment prevented Rixton from opposing Mauro's claim to half the project profits with its own claim for reimbursement of half the project expenses — effectively foreclosing a defence before the merits could be heard. Beyond the question of prejudice, the judge found that Rixton's grounds of appeal were serious, and that permitting the appeal served both the interest of justice and the guiding principles of procedure. On the separate question of whether to suspend the Superior Court proceedings pending appeal, the judge declined to do so, noting that the parties themselves agreed no stay was warranted given the current state of the file.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court of Appeal granted Rixton's application for leave to appeal the Superior Court's judgment of May 22, 2026. The matter was placed on the roll for January 15, 2027, in courtroom Pierre-Basile-Mignault. The appellant was ordered to file its factum, not exceeding 10 pages of written argument plus three schedules, by September 11, 2026, while the respondents were given until October 16, 2026 to file their own factum, also capped at 10 pages. Costs were ordered to follow the outcome of the appeal. This is a procedural ruling only — no monetary amount was ordered, granted, or awarded to either party at this stage, as the decision addresses solely whether the appeal may proceed, not the substantive dispute over profits and expenses.