Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The respondent and incidental appellant, 9128-4182 Québec inc., sought an extension of the deadline to notify and file its brief under articles 84 and 373 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
   
• Municipalité de Papineauville, the appellant and incidental respondent, did not contest the motion, and both parties consented to it.
   
• A pending motion for partial dismissal of the appeal, presentable on October 26, 2026, was one of the grounds the Deputy Clerk considered.
   
• Because the motion was uncontested, the parties were exempted from attending the hearing on September 4, 2026.
   
• Deputy Clerk Laila Azzam granted the motion and tied the new filing deadline to the ruling on the dismissal motion.
   
• No costs were awarded.
   

Facts of the case

Municipalité de Papineauville v. 9128-4182 Québec inc., 2026 QCCA 1177, is a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal, Montreal registry, rendered on September 4, 2026, by Deputy Clerk Laila Azzam in appeal file 500-09-032030-264. The appeal arises from first-instance file 550-17-009971-175. Municipalité de Papineauville is the appellant and incidental respondent, represented by Pierre McMartin of Beaudry, Bertrand. Its opponent, 9128-4182 Québec inc., is the respondent and incidental appellant, represented by Marie-Ève Zuniga of Deveau Dufour Mottet. The record does not disclose the nature of the underlying dispute, the content of the judgment under appeal, or the grounds of either the appeal or the incidental appeal. The company brought a motion to extend the time limit for filing its brief. The matter was called in courtroom RC-18. Since the municipality did not contest the motion, neither party was required to attend.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The motion was brought under articles 84 and 373 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Those provisions are cited only in the description of the motion; the judgment does not reproduce or interpret their wording. No contractual or policy terms were at issue.

Reasoning and analysis

The Deputy Clerk's reasons consist of three considerations. First, she took into account the motion itself and the explanations provided, though the judgment does not record what those explanations were. She also considered a pending motion for partial dismissal of the appeal, presentable on October 26, 2026; the judgment does not identify which party filed it or what portion of the appeal it targets. Finally, she relied on the parties' consent. With the dismissal motion still unresolved, the Deputy Clerk set the brief deadline by reference to that motion's outcome rather than fixing a calendar date.

Ruling and overall outcome

The motion was granted in favour of 9128-4182 Québec inc. Its time limit to notify and file its brief was set at 60 days following the judgment to be rendered on the motion to dismiss the appeal. The order was made without legal costs, and no monetary amount was awarded to either party.