Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The plaintiff failed to appear at the case management conference despite being duly summoned.
   
• Attempts to reach the plaintiff by courthouse intercom and by the telephone number on file were unsuccessful.
   
• Examination of the originating application revealed it was laconic and uninformative.
   
• No supporting exhibits were filed to substantiate the claim for vehicle rental and repair costs.
   
• Neither the Tribunal nor the defendant could determine which vehicle was involved or the specific amounts claimed.
   
• Consideration of civil procedure principles and the defendant's right to a full defence led to dismissal of the claim.
   

Facts of the case

Carrosserie Auto Prestige brought a small claims action against Intact Assurance in the Court of Québec, Small Claims Division, District of Montréal (file No. 500-32-728842-255). The originating application initially sought $70,000 for vehicle rental costs and unpaid repair costs, later reduced to $15,000. At the case management conference held on July 21, 2026, no representative of the plaintiff appeared. The Tribunal attempted to reach the plaintiff by contacting the courthouse intercom system at 1:54 p.m. and by calling the telephone number listed in the court file at 1:57 p.m.; both attempts were unsuccessful. The defendant's representative, Nazim Bouchekal, was present, while Isabelle Bissonnette-Granger was noted as absent.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

No specific insurance policy terms were addressed in the judgment, as the matter did not proceed to a hearing on the merits. Instead, the Tribunal considered the guiding principles of civil procedure and the fundamental right to a full and complete defence in reaching its decision to dismiss the claim.

Reasoning and analysis

The defendant's representative asked the Tribunal to dismiss the originating application. The Tribunal found that the plaintiff had been duly summoned and that nothing in the record explained its absence. Reviewing the substance of the application, the Tribunal concluded it was laconic and uninformative. It noted that the plaintiff had produced no exhibits to support the claim, leaving both the Tribunal and the defendant unable to identify which vehicle had allegedly been rented, which vehicle had allegedly undergone repairs, or the amounts attributable to each component of the claim. On this basis, the Tribunal characterized the allegations as insufficient and the claim itself as frivolous, if not abusive.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that the plaintiff had not made the effort, despite being duly summoned, to appear and complete its case. Intact Assurance, the defendant, was the successful party. Legal costs in the amount of $382 were awarded in its favour.