Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Excavation Kevin Lussier inc. sought leave to appeal a Court of Québec judgment that partly allowed its claim and partly allowed a cross-demand against it.
   
• Justice Benoît Moore examined whether the value in dispute entitled the applicant to an appeal as of right rather than requiring leave.
   
• Determining the applicable threshold required combining the value of the applicant's originating claim with the value of the respondent's cross-demand.
   
• Neither party contested that the combined value exceeded the $60,000 statutory threshold under the Code of Civil Procedure.
   
• Case law on cumulating claim values where both the principal demand and cross-demand are appealed guided the court's analysis.
   
• The application for leave was ultimately rendered unnecessary once the appeal-as-of-right entitlement was confirmed.

Facts of the case

The underlying dispute arose from a Court of Québec judgment rendered May 1, 2026 by Justice Isabelle Labranche in the district of Saint-Hyacinthe. That judgment partially granted Excavation Kevin Lussier inc.'s originating application, ordering the return of a vehicle that was the subject of the litigation, and partially granted a cross-demand brought by Remorquage Rodier inc. The Court of Québec ordered Excavation Kevin Lussier inc. to pay Remorquage Rodier inc. $37,401.47, with interest at the legal rate running from the notification of the cross-demand. Excavation Kevin Lussier inc. subsequently sought permission from the Court of Appeal to appeal that judgment, framing its request as an application for leave to appeal.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The central provision was article 30, paragraph 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure, which sets the value-in-dispute threshold above which a party is entitled to appeal as of right without needing leave. Article 30, paragraph 4 was also relevant to how interest accrued to the date of the judgment under appeal factors into that valuation. Article 357, paragraph 3 governed the procedural consequence of confirming an appeal as of right, allowing the court to take note of the declaration of appeal as having been made on the date of the judgment resolving the leave question.

Reasoning and analysis

Before the hearing, Justice Moore raised, on his own initiative, the question of whether Excavation Kevin Lussier inc. actually required leave to appeal, given the value in dispute. At the hearing, both counsel agreed that the appeal was as of right, with Remorquage Rodier inc.'s counsel expressly not contesting the point. Justice Moore confirmed that the parties were correct, relying on established jurisprudence holding that when an applicant appeals both a principal demand and a cross-demand, the value in dispute for threshold purposes is calculated by cumulating the amounts at stake in both demands. Applying that approach, the judge noted the applicant's originating claim was valued at $20,100 plus legal interest and the additional indemnity from April 28, 2023, for part of that claim, while the cross-demand was valued at $37,401.47 with legal interest from September 28, 2023. Cumulating these figures, together with interest accrued to the date of the judgment under appeal, produced a value exceeding the $60,000 threshold set by article 30, paragraph 2.

Ruling and overall outcome

Having found that the combined value in dispute surpassed the statutory threshold, Justice Moore declared that Excavation Kevin Lussier inc.'s appeal was as of right and took note of the filing of its declaration of appeal, deemed made as of the date of the judgment. As a result, the application for leave to appeal was declared without object, since no such leave was needed. This decision did not itself award any damages or costs on the merits; it addressed only the procedural entitlement to appeal. Legal costs relating to this application were ordered to follow the outcome of the underlying appeal, meaning no specific costs amount was fixed at this stage — the amount, if any, remains undetermined pending resolution of the appeal itself.