Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Parties to a small claims matter took part in the Small Claims Division's "remote mediation project" and reached an agreement there.
   
• According to the court, that agreement ended the dispute.
   
• Both parties asked the court to homologate the agreement, which was signed on September 10, 2026.
   
• Article 556 of the Code of Civil Procedure is the only legislative provision cited.
   
• Homologation made the agreement enforceable and incorporated it into the judgment as an integral part.
   
• None of the agreement's terms, including any sum payable, appear in the judgment's text, and no legal costs were awarded.
   

Facts of the case

9235-0040 Québec inc. [note: the style of cause spells the plaintiff's name "9235-0040 Québec inc.," while the party designation reads "9235 0040 QUÉBEC INC." without a hyphen] brought a claim against Alain Verret in the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec, District of Québec, under file number 200-32-072133-233. The judgment does not describe the nature of the claim or the amount originally sought. Both parties participated in the Division's "remote mediation project," and during that mediation they reached an agreement that, according to the court, ended the dispute. They then asked the court to homologate the agreement.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

No contract or policy clauses are discussed in the decision. Article 556 of the Code of Civil Procedure is the only provision cited, and the judgment does not quote or paraphrase its content.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Hélène Carrier, Associate Coordinating Judge of the Civil Chamber, sitting in chambers, decided the matter in a short set of recitals rather than through substantive analysis. She noted that the parties had taken part in the remote mediation, that they had reached an agreement, that the agreement resolved the dispute, and that they sought its homologation. With those points established, and having regard to article 556, she granted the request. The judgment contains no discussion of the merits of the underlying claim.

Ruling and overall outcome

In a judgment dated September 24, 2026, the court homologated the agreement signed on September 10, 2026, declared it enforceable, and made it an integral part of the judgment. Because the matter was resolved by consent, the decision does not name a successful party. The agreement is described as attached to the judgment, but its terms are not reproduced in the decision text, so no exact amount can be determined. The court awarded no legal costs.