Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Quebec Court of Appeal ruled on the Respondents' motion to dismiss the appeal brought by 9146-0022 Québec Inc.
   
• Judges Gagné, Cotnam, and Beaupré decided the motion on the record alone, without an oral hearing.
   
• Articles 366 of the Code of Civil Procedure and 39 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal of Quebec in Civil Matters governed the summary disposition.
   
• No costs were awarded to either party.
   
• Underlying facts of the appeal itself are not disclosed in this ruling.
   

Facts of the case

This ruling arises from an appeal filed by 9146-0022 Québec Inc. (the Appellant) against Société en commandite Mixdev #1 and Société en commandite Mixdev #1A (the Respondents), referencing the underlying file number 200-17-032433-211. The Respondents brought a motion to dismiss that appeal. The document does not disclose the facts giving rise to the original dispute or the appeal itself.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The panel's decision rests on two procedural provisions: article 366 of the Code of Civil Procedure and article 39 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal of Quebec in Civil Matters. Together, these provisions permit the Court to dispose of a motion to dismiss an appeal on the basis of the written record, without convening a hearing.

Reasoning and analysis

The panel, composed of Justices Suzanne Gagné, Geneviève Cotnam, and Michel Beaupré, provided no substantive reasoning beyond stating that the motion was dismissed on the basis of the record. No further analysis, discussion of the parties' arguments, or evidentiary findings are included in the document.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court dismissed the Respondents' motion to dismiss the appeal, without a hearing and without costs to either side. As a result, the motion was struck from the Court's hearing roll of August 3, 2026. The Appellant, 9146-0022 Québec Inc., was the successful party on this motion, though no monetary amount was awarded, ordered, or granted, as the ruling expressly specifies no costs.