Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Quebec Court of Appeal considered a motion by the appellant for an extension of time to file its factum.
   
• Counsel substitution shortly before the request formed the central justification the appellant relied on.
   
• Respondent's counsel opposed the length of the extension rather than the extension itself, arguing that 15 days would be sufficient.
   
• Alleged prejudice from the appellant's continued occupation of a disputed building, which is uninsured due to fire safety non-compliance, weighed heavily in the analysis.
   
• Prior jurisprudence on new counsel joining a file supported extending the deadline to some degree.
   
• Ultimately, a 30-day extension was granted, shorter than either the three months proposed by the appellant or the four months originally sought.
   

Facts of the case

The appellant, 9311-3652 Québec inc., filed a declaration of appeal on April 20, 2026, while represented by Me Desjarlais. That counsel ceased to act on July 13, 2026. On July 17, 2026, Me Ben Miled filed a notice of representation along with a motion to extend the deadline for filing the appellant's factum, initially seeking a four-month extension to November 20, 2026. At the hearing, counsel for the appellant reduced the request to three months and asked that any extension be granted peremptorily. The respondent, 9255-3320 Québec inc., did not oppose an extension in principle but argued that 15 days would be adequate, noting that appellant's counsel already had the stenographic notes from the three days of hearing in hand. The respondent also raised prejudice arising from the appellant's continued occupation, without right, of the building at issue, which the respondent described as worth several million dollars and as neither insured nor insurable because of the appellant's non-compliance with fire safety requirements — a risk affecting the respondent and the building's other co-owners.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The motion was brought under articles 84 and 373 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which govern extensions of procedural deadlines. The court's analysis also drew on prior Court of Appeal decisions holding that a change of counsel can justify extending the deadline for filing a factum, alongside case law recognizing that prejudice to the opposing party is a relevant consideration when assessing such a request.

Reasoning and analysis

The court accepted that the recent substitution of counsel justified some additional time for new counsel to prepare the factum, consistent with the cited case law on counsel changes. However, it found that the appellant had not put forward any specific reason to justify a four-month extension, and that even the reduced three-month request remained excessive given the state of the file, the fact that the stenographic notes were already available, and the explanations offered at the hearing. The court weighed this against the prejudice alleged by the respondent, noting that denying the extension outright would render the appeal moot, while granting the full delay sought would prolong the situation the respondent said was causing it harm. Balancing the justification for new counsel to have some additional time against the respondent's stated prejudice and the absence of a specific reason for a lengthy extension, the court determined that a more limited extension struck the appropriate balance.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court granted the appellant's motion in part, extending the deadline for notifying and filing its factum to August 31, 2026 — a 30-day extension from the date of judgment, rather than the three or four months the appellant had sought. Costs were ordered to follow the outcome of the appeal, meaning no specific amount was fixed at this stage.