Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The applicant sought leave to appeal a Court of Québec judgment that refused to summarily dismiss the respondent's originating application.
   
• Article 31, paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that a judgment either partly decide the dispute or cause irreparable harm before an appeal may be authorized.
   
• Neither condition was met, since the refusal to dismiss the claim summarily did not resolve any part of the litigation nor prejudice the applicant irreparably.
   
• A separate order deferring the applicant's abuse allegation to the trial judge was characterized as a case-management measure governed by article 32 C.C.P.
   
• Appeals from such management measures are authorized only in rare cases where the measure appears unreasonable in light of the guiding principles of procedure.
   
• Ultimately, the judge found the applicant's proposed appeal did not raise any new question of law, jurisdiction, or public interest warranting immediate resolution.
   

Facts of the case

This matter arose from an application for leave to appeal a judgment rendered during proceedings on May 11, 2026 by the Honourable Yves Hamel of the Court of Québec, District of Montreal. That underlying judgment had done two things: it refused to summarily dismiss the originating application brought by the respondent, 9225-7385 Québec inc., and it referred to the trial judge the remainder of a dispute raised by the applicant's own request for a declaration that the respondent's conduct was abusive. The applicant, 9429-2232 Québec inc., sought permission to appeal both aspects of that judgment, along with a stay of the first-instance proceedings. In seeking leave, the applicant intended to ask the Court of Appeal to overturn the judgment, summarily dismiss the respondent's originating application, and order the respondents to reimburse solidarily the legal fees and disbursements the applicant had incurred. The application was heard by a single judge of the Court of Appeal, with argument presented by counsel for both sides before the matter was briefly suspended and then resumed for judgment.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

Two provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure framed the analysis. Article 31, paragraph 2 governs appeals from judgments that refuse to dismiss a proceeding summarily, and permits leave only where the judgment decides part of the dispute or causes irreparable harm to the party seeking to appeal. Article 32 C.C.P. addresses case-management measures relating to the conduct of a proceeding; under this provision, an appeal will be authorized only if the measure "appears unreasonable in light of the guiding principles of procedure." The judge noted that this second threshold is particularly demanding, observing that appeals from article 32 judgments are "rare and exceptional."

Reasoning and analysis

The judge first addressed the refusal to summarily dismiss the respondent's claim, concluding that this ruling fell under article 31, paragraph 2 C.C.P. He found that neither condition for leave under that provision was satisfied: the judgment did not decide any part of the litigation, and it caused the applicant no irreparable harm, consistent with established appellate authority holding that the dismissal of a summary dismissal application generally does not cause irreparable prejudice to the unsuccessful party. He further disagreed with the applicant's contention that the appeal raised a new question of law or an issue of public interest requiring immediate resolution, characterizing the real dispute as concerning the trial judge's exercise of discretion in the specific circumstances of the case. Turning to the order deferring the abuse allegation to the trial judge, the judge treated this as a case-management measure under article 32 C.C.P. and applied the demanding "unreasonable" standard applicable to such measures. He gave deference to the trial judge's factual finding that the applicant had been attempting to circumvent the adversarial process of a contested hearing, and concluded that it was reasonable for the trial judge to leave the assessment of the respondent's conduct, and any resulting sanctions, to be determined at trial rather than resolved at a preliminary stage.

Ruling and overall outcome

Finding that the applicant had not met the threshold required under either article 31, paragraph 2 or article 32 C.C.P., the judge dismissed the application for leave to appeal in its entirety. The respondents were successful in defeating the applicant's bid to bring the matter before the Court of Appeal, and the judgment awarded them legal costs, though no specific dollar amount was stated in the decision.