Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Appellants sought leave to appeal de bene esse together with an extension of the appeal deadline, filing their application roughly four months after their notice of appeal.
   
• Quebec appellate case law establishes that appeals from judgments homologating a settlement are subject to a leave requirement rather than an appeal as of right.
   
• No party contested the application, and both sides were dispensed from appearing at the hearing.
   
• Underlying the appeal is a Superior Court judgment that homologated a settlement between the respondents and dismissed the appellants' cross-application alleging the settlement application was abusive.
   
• Article 363(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure sets the threshold the Court applied in assessing whether the conditions for extension were satisfied.
   
• Costs of the application were ordered to follow, with no monetary amount specified in the judgment.
   

Facts of the case

The appellants — 9454-5399 Québec inc., 9321-5317 Québec inc., Sébastien Cliche, Nicolas Giguère, and 8th Sense inc. — filed a notice of appeal on March 3, 2026, against a Superior Court judgment rendered February 13, 2026 by the Honourable Marie-France Vincent in the district of Quebec, later rectified on March 2, 2026. That underlying judgment had granted an application by the respondents, JWG Import inc. and Gestion Jewinner inc., to homologate a settlement, and dismissed the appellants' cross-application seeking to have that homologation application declared abusive. The Court of Appeal noted that the underlying ruling relates to Giguère c. JWG Import inc., 2026 QCCS 590. On July 6, 2026, the appellants brought the application at issue before the Court of Appeal, seeking leave to appeal de bene esse and an extension of the appeal deadline. Several other parties — Groupe Immobilier H2 inc., Tim Haddad, Olivier Boulanger, Groupe KDA inc., and the Registrars of Land Rights for the Quebec and Lévis registration divisions — were named as mis en cause. No contestation to the application was filed, and the parties were dispensed from appearing at the hearing held August 3, 2026.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The application invoked articles 30(8), 357, and 363 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Article 30(8) governs the categories of judgments from which an appeal requires leave, article 357 addresses the deadline for filing an appeal, and article 363, particularly its second paragraph, sets out the conditions under which the Court may grant an extension of that deadline. The Court also relied on its own prior jurisprudence establishing that a judgment homologating a settlement falls within the category of judgments appealable only with leave, citing Groupe Patrimoine Blanchet inc. c. Gestion Caron & Roy inc., 2024 QCCA 905; Abela c. Municipalité de Cantley, 2019 QCCA 1159; Fondation Papillon c. Borduas, 2019 QCCA 161; and Klub Athlétik 40 c. Duquette Construction (1994) ltée, 2019 QCCA 1111.

Reasoning and analysis

The panel proceeded on the basis that an appeal from a judgment homologating a settlement is subject to a leave requirement, as confirmed by the four authorities cited. Having reviewed the application, the sworn declarations, and the supporting exhibits, and noting the absence of any contestation, the Court found that the conditions set out in article 363(2) C.C.P. were satisfied, warranting both leave to appeal de bene esse and an extension of the appeal deadline.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court of Appeal granted the appellants' application in full. It allowed the application for leave to appeal de bene esse and for an extension of the appeal deadline, with costs of the application ordered to follow — no specific amount was stated in the judgment. The Court further granted the appellants leave to appeal the Superior Court's judgment of February 13, 2026, as rectified on March 2, 2026, in file No. 200-17-036611-242. The panel consisted of Justices Suzanne Gagné, Geneviève Cotnam, and Michel Beaupré.