Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The parties took part in the Small Claims Division's remote mediation project and reached an agreement that ends the dispute.
   
• Homologation of the mediated agreement was requested by both parties.
   
• Confidentiality was sought, with the parties asking that the agreement remain under sealed cover.
   
• Article 556 of the Code of Civil Procedure is cited in the court's order.
   
• No details of the underlying claim, the settlement terms, or any amount payable are disclosed in the judgment.
   

Facts of the case

Jacques Dugal brought a claim against Pro-Performance GPL inc. in the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec, district of Québec (file no. 200-32-709118-235). The judgment does not describe the nature of the claim, the amount sought, or the events that gave rise to the dispute. Both parties participated in the Small Claims Division's remote mediation project and reached an agreement on August 26, 2026. According to the judgment, that agreement ends the dispute.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

No contractual clauses or policy terms are discussed in the decision. Its only legislative reference is to article 556 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which the court cites before issuing its order, without quoting or paraphrasing the provision. Because the agreement was filed under sealed cover at the parties' request, its terms are not reproduced or summarized anywhere in the decision.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Hélène Carrier, Associate Coordinating Judge of the Civil Division, dealt with the matter in chambers. Her reasons consist of a series of recitals: the parties took part in the remote mediation project, they concluded an agreement during that mediation, the agreement ends the dispute, and they asked that it remain confidential and be homologated. On that basis, and in view of article 556 C.C.P., the court granted the request. No assessment of the merits of the underlying claim was made.

Ruling and overall outcome

On September 24, 2026, the court homologated the parties' August 26, 2026 agreement, the original of which is filed in the court record under sealed cover, and declared it enforceable. Neither party prevailed on the merits, as the file closed through a consensual settlement rather than an adjudicated outcome. No exact amount can be determined from the judgment: the agreement's terms, including whether any payment is involved, are confidential, and the order was made without legal costs.