Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• JusteFeu repeatedly missed both contractual and court-ordered deadlines for producing discovery undertakings, including one set by a May 27, 2026 order requiring production by June 8, 2026.
   
• Several undertakings that JusteFeu did eventually provide were incomplete, unresponsive, or accompanied by objections raised for the first time months after the original examination on discovery.
   
• QCC sought a declaration of serious procedural failure under article 342 C.p.c. and compensation of $6,422.32 for extrajudicial fees incurred pursuing the undertakings.
   
• Bulk document transfers made shortly before the hearing, including a 334-email OneDrive link, did not cure the earlier delays in the court's view.
   
• Applying a three-step framework from prior jurisprudence, the court assessed the reasonableness of QCC's claimed fees against the gravity of JusteFeu's conduct.
   
• Ultimately, the court found serious failures in the conduct of the proceeding and awarded QCC $2,500 in compensation, well below the amount claimed.
   

Facts of the case

The dispute arises from a packaging and distribution agreement signed on September 25, 2023, between 9423-2287 Québec inc., doing business as Québec Craft Cannabis ("QCC"), and Justefeu inc. ("JusteFeu"), a greenhouse cannabis grower. QCC packages and processes cannabis for the Société québécoise du cannabis. The business relationship soured, leading QCC to file an Originating Application against JusteFeu on December 20, 2024, followed by a Defence and Cross-Demand from JusteFeu on March 25, 2025.

During an examination on discovery of JusteFeu's representative, Me Philippe Bédard, on February 12, 2026, JusteFeu gave a series of undertakings to produce documents, one of which (financial statements, undertaking E-15) was subject to an objection on relevance grounds. Under the case protocol, undertakings were due within 14 days. When nothing arrived, QCC's counsel followed up repeatedly. JusteFeu did not commit to a production date until April 27, 2026, promising delivery by May 15, 2026 — a deadline also missed. This led to a May 27, 2026 hearing before the Honourable Johanne Brodeur, J.S.C., who ordered JusteFeu to produce the undertakings by June 8, 2026.

That deadline also passed without compliance. JusteFeu finally responded on June 15, 2026, but the response was, according to QCC, deficient in two ways: some undertakings were answered incompletely or not at all (Table B), and JusteFeu raised new objections to other undertakings that had not been raised during the original examination (Table C). QCC subsequently filed an Application to rule on the objections and to have a serious failure in the conduct of the proceeding declared, also claiming $6,422.32 in extrajudicial fees under article 342 C.p.c. The objections themselves were resolved at a hearing on August 19, 2026, leaving only the article 342 C.p.c. claim for adjudication.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The central provision is article 342 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows a court to sanction a party for a serious failure in the conduct of a proceeding, including through an award of compensation for professional fees incurred as a result. The court also referenced article 20 C.p.c., which requires parties to cooperate by informing each other of relevant facts and evidence and by preserving evidence — a provision JusteFeu invoked in arguing that QCC could have avoided the dispute through informal communication rather than judicial intervention.

Reasoning and analysis

The court organized its analysis around principles and consequences drawn from prior case law. Citing Lavoie v. Latouche, 2019 QCCA 2116, the court noted that the Court of Appeal has treated failure to honour discovery undertakings as a serious failure warranting sanction, and in 9130-1713 Québec inc. v. Ville de Montréal, 2022 QCCS 2943, failing to attend an examination was similarly treated as a serious breach. Drawing on Procureur général du Québec v. Chun, 2021 QCCQ 6977, the court observed that failure to provide undertakings can amount to an abuse of procedure, sanctionable through damages, striking of pleadings, production orders, or dismissal of a defence.

For quantifying compensation, the court applied the three-step methodology from Layla Jet Ltd. v. Acass Canada Ltd., 2020 QCCS 667: first, identifying the professional fees incurred as the starting point; second, assessing the reasonableness of the claim; and third, considering the broader context, including the severity of the fault, to determine what portion of the reasonable fees should be awarded.

Applying this framework, the court found that JusteFeu failed to act with the diligence required, missing both a protocol-based deadline and a court-ordered deadline, and that new objections surfaced only in June 2026 — well after the original examination — contrary to the principle from Vidéotron ltée v. Bell Canada, 2025 QCCS 891, that objections must be raised concurrently with the discovery question. The court rejected JusteFeu's defences in turn: a bulk OneDrive transfer of 334 emails on July 9, 2026, was "inadequate" given the procedural obligation of precision; an August 17, 2026 transfer of further information came too close to the hearing to be curative; the successful resolution of objections at the August 19 hearing did not retroactively excuse the earlier delays; and JusteFeu could not shift responsibility to QCC to informally resolve the impasse under article 20 C.p.c. when JusteFeu itself bore the obligation to comply with the court's May 27 order. The court was sympathetic to Me Bédard's sworn explanation citing document volume, professional obligations, and serious family circumstances, but found these could not soften the conclusion given the record, and similarly did not accept the summer period as a full explanation given the deadlines had already lapsed beforehand.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court partially granted QCC's Application, finding that JusteFeu had committed serious failures in the conduct of the proceeding. On the fees claim, the court found QCC's $6,422.32 in claimed extrajudicial fees reasonable in principle, all tied directly to the Application, but concluded that the situation — while genuinely avoidable — was not at the most severe end of the spectrum, particularly given that the objections portion of the case was ultimately resolved constructively at the August 19, 2026 hearing. Exercising its discretion under article 342 C.p.c., the court ordered JusteFeu to pay QCC $2,500.00, with interest and the additional indemnity running from the date of judgment, within 45 days of August 27, 2026, plus legal costs.