Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Appellants sought relief from their default in failing to file their appeal brief within the prescribed time, relying on articles 84 and 376 C.C.P. and article 63 of the Court of Appeal's civil regulation.
   
• DGP Towers inc. contested the motion before a three-judge panel of the Quebec Court of Appeal.
   
• Allegations in the motion were found to explain the delay and to demonstrate the appellants' diligence.
   
• An earlier judgment, 2026 QCCA 697, had dismissed the respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal and found that the appellants raise questions deserving the Court's attention.
   
• Ruling from the bench, the Court relieved the appellants of the consequences of their default and extended the deadline for their brief to September 25, 2026.
   
• Legal costs were awarded because the motion had been contested, though no amount was fixed.
   

Facts of the case

9405-7890 Québec inc., Dabo Logistique inc., Charles-André Yao-Kra and Mamady Dabo are appellants in an appeal against DGP Towers inc., arising from first-instance file no. 500-17-123298-229. The Court of Appeal's decision does not describe the nature of the underlying dispute or the judgment under appeal. Earlier in the appeal, DGP Towers moved to dismiss the appeal, and the Court rejected that motion in 9405-7890 Québec inc. c. DGP Towers inc., 2026 QCCA 697. After failing to file their appeal brief within the prescribed time, the appellants brought a motion to be relieved from that default. Justices Simon Ruel, Stephen W. Hamilton and Andres C. Garin heard the motion in Montréal on September 3, 2026, with the appellants' counsel appearing by videoconference.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The motion was brought under articles 84 and 376 of the Code of Civil Procedure and article 63 of the Regulation of the Court of Appeal of Québec in civil matters. Neither the hearing minutes nor the judgment reproduces or discusses the wording of these provisions, and no contractual or policy terms were at issue.

Reasoning and analysis

DGP Towers contested the motion. Its counsel, Me Nicole Zawahré, presented argument and explained to the Court why the respondent opposed the relief sought, though the minutes do not record the substance of those reasons. Following that exchange, the Court ruled from the bench on two grounds. First, the allegations in the motion explained the delay and demonstrated that the appellants had acted diligently. Second, the Court had already held, in dismissing the respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal, that the appellants raise questions deserving its attention. Once judgment was rendered, Me Wendpegre Juste Samuel Nazé, for the appellants, asked that the filing date be set at September 25, 2026, rather than September 17, 2026.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, relieved the appellants of the consequences of failing to file their appeal brief within the prescribed time, and extended the deadline for notification and filing of their brief to September 25, 2026, the date their counsel had requested. Success on the motion went to the appellants. Legal costs were awarded in light of the respondent's contestation of the motion, but the judgment states no amount, so no exact monetary figure can be determined.