Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Construction DJL sued Manuquip for at least $927,000 in additional CNESST premiums, plus lost production, repair costs and expert fees, after a workplace accident seriously injured one of its employees.
   
• Manuquip and Simar-Dacon argued that the claim for the imputation of CNESST benefit costs conflicts with the compensation scheme under the Act respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases.
   
• According to the applicants, sections 326 and 349 of that Act give the CNESST exclusive jurisdiction to apportion benefit costs between two employers.
   
• The Superior Court dismissed their declinatory exception, inadmissibility and partial dismissal application, prompting the leave application.
   
• A judgment dismissing a jurisdiction-based declinatory exception satisfies article 31, paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
   
• Leave was granted because the CNESST's jurisdiction over apportionment between employers appeared to be a new question with no case law either way.
   

Facts of the case

An employee of Construction DJL inc. was seriously injured in a workplace accident. DJL maintains that the accident was caused by the failure of a motor mount sold and installed by Les Équipements Manuquip inc. Manuquip, in turn, brought a call in warranty against Simar-Dacon inc. [spelled "Simas-Dacon Inc." on the cover page of the decision].

The CNESST charges the cost of the benefits it pays to the injured employee to DJL. In its Superior Court action, DJL seeks from Manuquip at least $927,000, the amount it will have to pay the CNESST in additional premiums, along with compensation for lost production, repair costs and expert fees. Separately, in August 2021, DJL asked the CNESST to transfer the imputation of the benefit costs to Manuquip. The CNESST had not yet ruled on that request.

Manuquip and Simar-Dacon challenged the claim for the imputation of CNESST benefit costs through an application raising a declinatory exception, inadmissibility and partial dismissal of the originating application. Justice Catherine Martel of the Superior Court, District of Montréal, dismissed that application on May 19, 2026 (2026 QCCS 1729). The two companies then sought leave to appeal.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The applicants relied on the Act respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases (R.L.R.Q. c. A-3.001), arguing that sections 326 and 349 give the CNESST exclusive jurisdiction to decide how the imputation of benefit costs is shared between two employers. Neither section is quoted or described in the Court of Appeal's decision. They also invoked the doctrine of abuse of process by relitigation.

On the procedural side, the application was brought under articles 31 and 357 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decision's analysis turns on whether the conditions of article 31, paragraph 2 were met.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Stephen W. Hamilton, sitting alone, first held that a judgment dismissing a declinatory exception based on jurisdiction meets the conditions of article 31, paragraph 2, citing Istanboulian c. Kalajian, 2022 QCCA 1259.

Turning to the substance, he found that the CNESST's jurisdiction to apportion liability between two employers appeared to be a new question. Neither side cited case law on the point, though the parties provided several examples of the CNESST apportioning benefit costs. Without ruling on the chances of success of the argument advanced by the respondent [as stated in the source; paragraph [2] attributes the exclusive-jurisdiction argument to the applicants], he considered the question sufficiently interesting to warrant leave. He also found it appropriate to stay the Superior Court proceedings until the appeal is decided.

Ruling and overall outcome

Manuquip and Simar-Dacon obtained leave to appeal Justice Martel's May 19, 2026 judgment. This was a procedural win, granted without any ruling on the argument's chances of success. Proceedings in the Superior Court were stayed. The appellants' brief is due October 30, 2026, and the respondent's by December 15, 2026, each limited to 20 pages of argument. Each side has 45 minutes of hearing time, and the appeal date was referred to the Master of the Rolls. No monetary amount was ordered: legal costs were left to follow the outcome of the appeal, so no exact figure can be determined from this decision.