Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Two applicants sought leave to appeal a safeguard order issued in a Court of Quebec lease dispute.
   
• Respondent's counsel raised the existence of a related judgment declaring the applicants foreclosed from contesting the underlying claim.
   
• Applicants' counsel confirmed her intention to also seek leave to appeal that foreclosion judgment, albeit out of time.
   
• Neither party objected to having the two anticipated appeal applications heard together.
   
• The panel deferred the amended motion to a three-judge formation and set a joint hearing date for both matters.
   
• Procedural deadlines were imposed for filing additional copies and the appeal record, with costs to follow.
   

Facts of the case

The dispute arises from a lease-related judgment rendered at first instance in the Court of Quebec, district of Longueuil, by the Honourable Luc Hervé Thibaudeau. On June 17, 2026, rectified June 22, 2026, that court declared 9524-4620 Québec inc. and Pavel Iurcovschi (the applicants) foreclosed from contesting the originating application filed by 9461-3353 Québec inc. (the respondent), which sought lease termination, payment of arrears, and payment of a relocation indemnity. Separately, a judgment rendered during the proceedings on May 20, 2026, and rectified May 21, 2026, granted a safeguard order. The applicants filed an amended motion for leave to appeal that safeguard order, submitted to the Court of Appeal registry on August 10, 2026. At the August 11, 2026 hearing before Justice Christine Baudouin, respondent's counsel, Me Eric Dugal, noted his understanding that a motion for leave to appeal would also be filed against the June 17/22 foreclosion judgment. Applicants' counsel, Me Olga Grytsak, confirmed this intention, indicating she would seek leave out of time since the usual deadline had passed.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The proceeding turned on procedural provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure rather than substantive contractual clauses. Article 363 C.C.P. was expressly considered by the panel in reaching its decision. Articles 31 and 357 C.C.P. framed the description of the amended motion itself. The document does not specify the particular function of these provisions beyond citing them. No lease clauses or other contractual terms were discussed or quoted, as the hearing addressed only the procedural posture of the appeal applications rather than the merits of the underlying lease dispute.

Reasoning and analysis

Me Dugal took the position that the amended motion concerning the safeguard order and the forthcoming motion concerning the foreclosion judgment should proceed jointly; Me Grytsak indicated she would not object to this. After hearing from both counsel, Justice Baudouin proposed that the matter be scheduled for September 14, 2026, before a three-judge panel of which she would be a member. She further suggested that the present amended motion be referred to that panel rather than decided immediately, so that it could be considered alongside the anticipated out-of-time motion concerning the foreclosion judgment. The judge also invited counsel to attempt to settle the matter out of court in the interim.

Ruling and overall outcome

Justice Baudouin referred the applicants' amended motion for leave to appeal the May 20/21, 2026 safeguard order to the three-judge panel sitting September 14, 2026, in room Pierre-Basile-Mignault. She ordered Me Grytsak, counsel for the applicants, to file two additional paper copies of the amended motion by August 25, 2026, before 4:30 p.m., and to file the applicants' appeal proceedings by the same deadline. The judge also took note of Me Grytsak's undertaking to file a declaration of appeal together with a motion for leave to appeal out of time concerning the June 17/22, 2026 foreclosion judgment, to be presentable at the same September 14 hearing. Costs were ordered to follow, with no specific amount determined in this decision.