Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Quebec Court of Appeal considered whether a proposed appeal raised a genuine question of principle justifying leave to appeal.
   
• Justice Gagné evaluated whether alleged errors in assessing a representative's credibility warranted appellate intervention.
   
• Video evidence obtained without the applicant's representative's knowledge had influenced the trial judge's credibility findings below.
   
• A general contractor's warranty claim against its subcontractor had already been dismissed at trial, with a cross-demand for abuse of procedure allowed instead.
   
• Proportionality, measured against the value of the matter in dispute, weighed against granting leave to appeal.
   
• Credibility assessments were found to attract significant deference on appellate review.
   

Facts of the case

Construction Richard Cliche inc. sought leave to appeal a judgment rendered May 12, 2026 by the Superior Court, district of Quebec, before the Honourable Danye Daigle. In the underlying proceeding, the Superior Court dismissed Construction Richard Cliche inc.'s warranty claim against Excavation Roberge et Fils inc. and instead allowed a cross-demand brought by Excavation Roberge et Fils inc. based on abuse of procedure. The Superior Court found the warranty claim to be abusive and ordered Construction Richard Cliche inc. to pay Excavation Roberge et Fils inc. damages of $17,000. Construction Richard Cliche inc. then applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal that judgment under articles 30(2) and 357 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The hearing took place on July 30, 2026 before Justice Suzanne Gagné, with counsel for both the applicant and respondent making submissions, along with counsel for the impleaded parties.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The application turned on article 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which governs when leave to appeal may be granted. The applicant relied on the second paragraph of article 30, arguing its case raised a question of principle. Justice Gagné, however, pointed to article 30(3), which states that the Court of Appeal's primary role is not to resolve disputes of interest only to the parties involved. She also invoked article 357 C.C.P., under which the application was brought.

Reasoning and analysis

Construction Richard Cliche inc. argued that the case raised a question of principle based on what it described as a manifest and determinative error limiting a general contractor's right to bring a warranty claim against its subcontractor. It contended that the trial judge erred in fact and in law when assessing the credibility of its representative, in particular by relying on a video that had been filmed without the representative's knowledge. Justice Gagné referred to the Court of Appeal's earlier decision in Auger v. MVC Construction inc., where Justice Morissette described a "question of principle" as a serious problem requiring resolution and involving a significant legal stake extending appreciably beyond the interests of the parties themselves. Applying that standard, Justice Gagné found that Construction Richard Cliche inc. had not shown that the issue it raised went beyond its own interest and that of Excavation Roberge et Fils inc. in the litigation. She further noted that the alleged errors concerned the trial judge's assessment of witness credibility, an area in which appellate courts generally defer to trial judges. Citing prior Court of Appeal authority, she reiterated that a bare allegation of trial-level error is not enough to justify granting leave to appeal. Justice Gagné also considered the value of the matter at stake on appeal and concluded that granting leave would conflict with the principle of proportionality.

Ruling and overall outcome

Justice Gagné dismissed Construction Richard Cliche inc.'s application for leave to appeal, with legal costs awarded against it. Excavation Roberge et Fils inc. was the successful party on this application. The judgment does not specify a dollar amount for the costs awarded on the application itself; the $17,000 in damages referenced in the decision relates to the underlying Superior Court judgment being appealed, not to an amount awarded by the Court of Appeal in this ruling.