Insurance Law

March 4, 2024

290

Even Judicial Discretion Has its Limits

On January 25, 2024, in the Liquidation de Groupe Dessau inc., the Superior Court of Québec rejected a settlement approval request in the context of the voluntary liquidation of several entities of the Dessau-Verreault-LVM Group (“Dessau“). This judgment addresses the limits of the discretionary powers of the court in voluntary liquidation matters.

Overview of the proceedings

In this case, Dessau was undergoing voluntary liquidation under the supervision of the Superior Court. Meanwhile, Beneva Insurance Company Inc., Beneva Inc., and Beneva Real Estate Inc. (“Beneva“) filed a lawsuit against various professionals and subcontractors (“Civil Defendants“), as well as against two (2) Dessau entities, claiming over $7 million for damages caused by various defects affecting a property owned by them (“Civil Action“).

Due to the voluntary liquidation process, a notice of suspension of proceedings was filed by Dessau’s liquidator in the Civil Action. Beneva then filed a motion to lift this suspension.

Beneva and Dessau’s liquidator subsequently reached a settlement in which Beneva waived the adjudication of its motion to lift the suspension of the Civil Action in exchange for Dessau paying $250,000 (“Settlement“).

The liquidator filed a request for approval of the Settlement within the framework of Dessau’s liquidation (“Approval Request“). In this procedure, the liquidator impleaded the Civil Defendants and specifically asked the Superior Court to order and declare the following:

  • The Settlement will have no effect on the Civil Action, except to reduce Beneva’s claim by $250,000;
  • No discharge and/or release is granted by Beneva;
  • The liability of the Civil Defendants will not be limited regarding any claim that Beneva may have against them in the Civil Action;
  • Permanent and definitive suspension of the Civil Action against Dessau;
  • The Civil Defendants are forever prohibited from making a claim against Dessau.

The Civil Defendants contested the approval request, claiming that the court, in overseeing Dessau’s liquidation, cannot infringe upon their rights to invoke the effect of discharge under Article 1690 of the Civil Code of Québec (C.c.Q.) or prevent them from seeking Dessau’s forced intervention in the Civil Action.

The Superior Court sided with the defendants for the reasons outlined below and refused to approve the Settlement.

Analysis

The Superior Court rejected the Approval Request for two main reasons:

  1. Lack of discretion: the court has no explicit or implicit power to issue the declarations and orders sought by Dessau’s liquidator;
  1. Exercise of discretion: even if the court had such discretionary power, it would not exercise it in this instance.

Regarding the first point, the Court concluded that granting the request would potentially reduce Dessau’s obligations and prejudice the rights of the Civil Defendants in the Civil Action. It stated that, in the context of voluntary liquidation, the court does not have the power to issue such orders under the Business Corporations Act (Quebec) (“BCAQ“). The court’s role in voluntary liquidation is limited to facilitating the process leading to the liquidator’s final account or distribution proposal, not to release Dessau from its obligations.

Regarding the second point, the Court stated that even if it had the power to issue such orders, it would still not approve the Approval Request. It mentioned that it is not in a position to assess Dessau’s fair share of responsibility in the Civil Action. To do so, the principles outlined in Article 1478 of the C.c.Q. would need to be applied, which falls under the assessment of evidence on the merits of the Civil Action. Since the Court has no evidence to establish Dessau’s potential responsibility in the Civil Action, it concluded that it cannot assess whether the amount paid by the liquidator in the Settlement represents Dessau’s fair share of responsibility in the Civil Action. Thus, the Court stated that it would have refused to exercise its discretionary power to approve the Approval Request if such power had been given to it under the BCAQ.

Conclusion

This judgment serves as a reminder that the court’s discretionary powers in approving settlement agreements are not unlimited in the context of voluntary liquidation. The Court will not automatically approve any settlement agreement that the liquidator may conclude with a creditor of the entity subject to the voluntary liquidation process, especially if it prejudices the rights of third parties.

290

Authors

Articles in the same category

Insurance Law / Newsletters

October 19, 2026

Ruin Finds a Reason

In Société d’assurance Beneva Inc. c. Ville de Sherbrooke, 2026 QCCA 1301, the Court of Appeal delivers a decision as concise as it is compelling on liability arising from the ruin of an immovable, in a case involving the rupture of a water main. Its impact could extend well beyond underground pipe failures. The Facts […]
Insurance Law

October 7, 2026

There Is No Point in Submitting a Bid Without Conducting Your Research First

In 9329-0146 Québec Inc. (M. Potvin Excavation) v. City of Saint-Constant, 2026 QCCA 1199, the Quebec Court of Appeal reaffirmed the principles governing a contracting authority’s duty to provide information and a bidder’s corresponding duty to seek clarification where necessary. The Facts  In May 2020, the City of Saint-Constant issued a public call for bids […]
Sports Law

August 27, 2026

2026 World Cup: FIFA Can Commercialise the Tournament, But Not Trust

Introduction With 48 teams, 104 matches, three host countries and 39 days of competition, the 2026 World Cup was already destined to make history because of its sheer scale. On the field, with a transformed VAR system (Video Assistant Referee) and FIFA’s new regulations, every player action was subjected to microscopic scrutiny. Off the field, […]
Insurance Law / Newsletters

August 11, 2026

An Insurer Is Not Required to Uncover What the Insured Was Required to Disclose

In Kayembe-Kabeya v. Industrielle Alliance, assurance et services financiers inc., 2026 QCCS 1714, the Superior Court sets the record straight on the principle of contractual “utmost good faith”. The Facts In September 2019, Ms. Ricady Mede (hereinafter “Mede”) purchased a life insurance policy from Industrielle Alliance (hereinafter the “Insurer”). A few months later, she died of […]
Insurance Law / Newsletters

July 31, 2026

When it’s too late for latent defects…

The Superior Court recently rendered a judgment in Reinert v. Construction Maurice Bilodeau Inc., 2026 QCCS 2276, dealing with timeliness to give notice in cases of latent defects. The Facts In 2013, Ms. Sylvie Reinert and Mr. Denis Leclerc retained Construction Maurice Bilodeau Inc. (“CMB”) for the construction of a residential building on a vacant lot in Lévis. […]
Insurance Law / Newsletters

July 28, 2026

Insurance Math: One Claim, Two Fires, Three Points of Origin, Zero Recovery: When Circumstantial Evidence Speaks Louder Than a Confession

In Chatel v. Desjardins Insurance, 2026 QCCS 712, the Quebec Superior Court reaffirmed a principle of insurance law: direct evidence is not required to establish an intentional fault. Mr. Chatel claimed $532,000 under his homeowner’s insurance policy following two fires that occurred four days apart. The first caused partial damage to his residence, while the second […]