Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Justice Frédéric Bachand of the Quebec Court of Appeal considered an application for leave to appeal an interlocutory judgment under article 31, paragraph 2 C.C.P.
   
• Two threshold conditions govern the analysis: whether the judgment determines part of the dispute or causes irremediable injury, and whether the intended appeal is in the interest of justice.
   
• Applicants sought to overturn a Superior Court order relieving the respondents of their default in requesting inscription for trial and extending the deadline to August 2, 2026.
   
• Courts have consistently held that a judgment merely allowing proceedings to continue does not cause irremediable injury to the opposing party.
   
• Both grounds raised by the applicants were characterized as speculative, lacking the factual and legal support needed to meet the statutory threshold.
   
• Deference to the trial judge's exercise of discretion further undermined any reasonable prospect that the proposed appeal could succeed.
   

?

Facts of the case

The applicants, Centre de collision Pierrefonds AM inc. and Gestion Perry Poidinger inc., sought leave to appeal a judgment rendered during the course of proceedings by Justice Catherine Piché of the Superior Court, district of Beauharnois. The underlying judgment, dated May 15, 2026, relieved the respondents, 9528-9203 Québec inc. and Distribution Fomazz inc., of their default in failing to request that the matter be set down for trial and judgment within the prescribed time, and extended that deadline to August 2, 2026.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

Central to the application was article 31, paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which permits an appeal of an interlocutory judgment with leave only where the judge considers that the judgment determines part of the dispute or causes irremediable injury to a party, including where it allows an objection to evidence. Beyond this threshold, the Court has recognized that leave also requires an assessment of whether the appeal serves the interest of justice, guided by the proportionality principles set out in articles 9(3) and 18 C.C.P. Justice Bachand relied on the framework articulated in Procureur général du Québec v. Gaspé Énergies inc. and reaffirmed in Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company v. SNC-Lavalin inc., which directs a single judge to weigh the reasonable chances of success of the proposed grounds alongside whether the issues raised are secondary to, or capable of advancing, the debate at first instance.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Bachand found that the first-instance judgment did not decide the dispute in any respect, and that relieving a party of a procedural default so that litigation may proceed does not, according to settled authority, cause irremediable injury to the opposing side. The applicants advanced two arguments for irremediable injury: first, that the judgment would deprive them of the ability to raise the unreasonableness of delay in a possible future passing-of-title application; and second, that the judgment created an unfavourable bias against them concerning an alleged lack of cooperation. Both arguments were presented, in the judge's view, too summarily and without supporting factual or legal grounding, rendering the claimed prejudice overly hypothetical. Although this conclusion was sufficient to dispose of the application, Justice Bachand went further to note that the proposed appeal was, in any event, unlikely to succeed on its merits. Decisions relieving a party of a procedural default attract deference on appeal, and the trial judge had properly applied the governing authority in Heaslip v. McDonald, having expressly considered the respondents' failure to meet their duty of cooperation under article 20 C.C.P. Justice Bachand characterized the circumstances as a clear instance of counsel error that should not prejudice the clients' rights, and found no basis to conclude that the trial judge's discretion had been exercised abusively, unreasonably, or non-judicially.

Ruling and overall outcome

Justice Bachand dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The respondents, 9528-9203 Québec inc. and Distribution Fomazz inc., were the successful parties, with the applicants' request for leave rejected on both procedural and substantive grounds. Legal costs were awarded against the applicants and in favour of the respondents, though the decision does not specify a quantified amount for those costs.