Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• A Quebec small claims plaintiff sought to amend his $10,000 claim, add witnesses, and adjourn a scheduled hearing without ever filing an amended originating application.
   
• Articles 206 and 207 of the Code of Civil Procedure require a party to produce and serve an amended pleading before the court can rule on proposed amendments.
   
• Because no amended pleading was filed, the court found it was not validly seized of the amendment request and reserved judgment on it.
   
• Two proposed witnesses were identified only by first name, leaving the court unable to assess whether they met the naming and disclosure requirements of article 554 C.C.P.
   
• Despite declining to rule on the amendment and witness issues, the judge granted the adjournment, finding it would support an orderly, adversarial process.
   
• No costs were awarded, and the underlying merits of the plaintiff's damages claim arising from statements made at a labour tribunal hearing were left entirely undecided.
   

Facts of the case

Rubem Ribeiro Junior sued Hertz Canada Limited in Quebec's Small Claims Division, claiming $10,000 in damages. He alleged that statements made by Hertz during a hearing before the Administrative Labour Tribunal harmed his reputation, his psychological health, and his financial situation. Hertz denied any wrongdoing and argued that the statements at issue arose from a dispute over whether a settlement had been reached through mediation between the parties, and that the damages claimed were either non-existent or exaggerated. Rather than ruling on that underlying dispute, the court dealt with a separate application Ribeiro Junior filed on August 18, 2026. In it, he signalled his intent to amend his claim — including increasing the amount sought, adding new allegations of harm, introducing additional evidence, and calling two new witnesses — and asked that the September 16, 2026 hearing be adjourned to let him carry out these steps. He also argued that his file still showed as "inadmissible" in the court's system despite a December 16, 2024 decision finding it admissible, at least in part, and claimed this was obstructing his procedural efforts. Hertz was notified of the application and given a chance to respond but filed no submissions.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The decision turns on several provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Article 206 C.C.P. allows a party to withdraw or amend a pleading before judgment without court authorization, provided the change does not delay the proceeding, is not contrary to the interests of justice, and does not create an entirely new claim unrelated to the original one. Article 207 C.C.P. sets out the required mechanism: the amending party must notify the other side of the amended pleading, triggering a 10-day opposition period, and only where opposition arises does the matter go before the court. Article 554 C.C.P. governs witness summonses, requiring that a party give the clerk the witness's name, the reason for summoning them, and the subject of their testimony at least 30 days before the hearing. Article 557 C.C.P. addresses adjournment requests before the Small Claims Division, providing that only a first request made at least a month ahead of the hearing can be handled by the clerk, with all others falling to the judge.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Éric Martel found that Ribeiro Junior's application described intended amendments but did not include an actual amended originating application. Without that document, the court could not assess whether the proposed changes — including the increased claim amount and new allegations — complied with the limits in article 206 C.C.P., and Hertz had not been given the amended pleading it would need to exercise its opposition rights under article 207 C.C.P. The judge therefore concluded the court was not validly seized of the amendment request and reserved the issue until a proper amended pleading is filed, expressly noting that this reservation implies no view on the merits of the changes contemplated. On the witness question, the court observed that identifying prospective witnesses only by their first names — "Jerron" and "Josée" — fell short of what article 554 C.C.P. requires, and, combined with the absence of an amended pleading clarifying what the witnesses would address, made it premature to rule. Turning to the adjournment, the judge applied the established discretionary framework, weighing whether Ribeiro Junior's stated grounds reflected genuine, serious circumstances rather than foreseeable delay or poor preparation, and drew on prior small claims decisions addressing similar requests. He found that adjourning the hearing would serve the orderly conduct of the proceeding and preserve Hertz's right to respond to any amended claim, particularly since Hertz had raised no objection to the request.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court declared that it was not validly seized of the application to amend the originating application and reserved that issue pending the filing of a compliant amended pleading, while making no ruling at all on the request to add witnesses. On the adjournment, however, the court sided with Ribeiro Junior, granting the request, cancelling the September 16, 2026 hearing, and directing the clerk's office to set a new date and notify both parties. Outcomes were therefore split by issue: Hertz effectively prevailed on the amendment and witness applications, which were left undecided in its favour procedurally, while Ribeiro Junior succeeded in obtaining the adjournment he sought. The judgment was rendered without costs, and no monetary award was made or addressed — the underlying $10,000 claim remains entirely unresolved.