Newsletters

231

A Draft Regulation Significantly Changes the Duty to Defend in Quebec

On September 8, 2021, the Quebec Minister of Finance published in Part 2 of the Official Gazette of Quebec a draft of the regulation [Draft Regulation] that specifies the categories of insurance contracts, and insured parties, that may derogate, in part, from the rules set out in articles 2500 and 2503 of the Civil Code of Quebec [CCQ].

Quebec has always been distinct in that the costs associated to the duty to defend are over and above the policy limits. The draft regulation will allow an insurer to deviate from this in certain circumstances.

Public order article 2500 CCQ mandates that a liability insurance policy’s limits must be used solely to pay the claims of injured third-parties (i.e. the claimants). Public order article 2503 CCQ mandates that a) the liability insurer must actively take up the defense of the insured in respect of covered claims, and b) the liability insurer must pay defense expense, interest and third-party costs in addition to policy limits.

The Draft Regulation enables a wide cross section of commercial entities (and their directors, officers and trustees) to obtain insurance that derogates, in part, from arts. 2500 and 2503 CCQ.

However, that derogation is subject to a significant constraint.

Per Section 8 of the Draft Regulation, policies that derogate from art. 2500 CCQ cannot erode more than 50% of their limits via payments made for purposes other than compensating injured third-parties (i.e. defense expense). This restriction does not apply if the insured is either found not liable, or is held liable for an amount that is less than 50% of limits. A further restriction applies to entities that are required by law to have a specified minimum amount of liability insurance (e.g. members of professional orders). That amount of indemnity cannot be eroded by other payments.

The official French version of the draft Regulation can be found here: http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=1&file=75542.pdf

An English version of the draft Regulation can be found here: http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=1&file=105247.pdf

The Exemptions

The entities that benefit from the different exemptions are generally summarized below. N.B.: some of the following descriptions of exempt entities are of a general nature. The legislative definitions referenced in the Draft Regulation should be consulted in order to determine the precise scope of each type of entity that benefits from an exemption.

Section 1 Exemption

Drug manufacturers, Cooperatif Desjardins investment fund entities, FTQ investment fund entities and CSN investment fund entities. The directors, officers, and trustees of these entities can obtain derogating insurance even if the entities do not subscribe to same.

Section 2 Exemption (applicable to entities that do not benefit from Exemption 1)

If their total coverage under all liability insurance contracts is at least $5M, the following entitles can obtain policies that derogate from the requirements of articles 2500 and 2503 CCQ: entities registered as “large businesses” (companies with more than $10M annual taxable sales, generally speaking), public issuers or their subsidiaries, entities registered as “foreign businesses”, and, finally, any otherwise non-exempt domestic companies that engage in any foreign business that generates income, but only for that foreign subset of their activities. The directors, officers, and trustees can obtain derogating insurance even if the entities do not subscribe to same.

Section 3 Exemption (applicable to entities that do not benefit from Exemptions 1 or 2)

Private seniors’ residences, providers of certain senior support services and/or certain similar services, and operators of residential and long-term care or rehab centres (generally speaking). The directors, officers, and trustees can obtain derogating insurance even if the entities do not subscribe to same.

Pension Committee Exception To Exemptions 1, 2 and 3

Directors, officers, and trustees who benefit from Exemptions 1, 2 and 3 are not exempt for activities they perform as members of pension committees. Such activities must be insured under policies that are in conformity with articles 2500 and 2503 CCQ.

Section 6 Exemption (applicable to entities that do not benefit from Exemptions 1, 2 or 3)

If an entity and/or its directors, officers, and trustees do not fall within Exemptions 1, 2, or 3, they can obtain policies that derogate from the requirements of articles 2500 and 2503 CCQ if the entity has a primary layer civil liability insurance policy that is in conformity with said articles.

Other Conditions Applicable to Derogating Policies

Per Section 7 of the Draft Regulation, policies that derogate from the first sentence of art. 2503 CCQ (which provides that the insurer must actively take up the defense of the insured) must provide the insured with the option of selecting defense counsel, after consulting with the insurer. These policies shall also stipulate that the insurer, who retains the right to participate in the defence, must be informed of case developments.

Public Comments

Per the introductory provisions of the Draft Regulation, persons wishing to comment on same are requested to submit written comments within a 45-day period to the Minister of Finance.

231

Authors

Nick Krnjevic

Lawyer, Partner

Articles in the same category

No Notice of Default, No Termination

In Pavage Wemindji Inc. v. Compagnie de Construction et de Développement crie ltée, the Quebec Superior Court emphasized that a valid notice of default (mise en demeure) is not just a formality—it’s a precondition to exercising remedies like contract termination in many cases under Quebec civil law. The Decision The plaintiff, Pavage Wemindji Inc. (“Wemindji”), […]

Public Contracts: When Does a Penalty Clause Cross the Line?

Penalty clauses are a practical tool for owners: instead of having to prove actual losses when a contractor falls short, they can rely on a pre-agreed sum. For contractors, however, the stakes are equally significant — a lump-sum penalty can consume a substantial portion of the contract’s value. Still, the mechanism has its limits. Courts […]

Not So Intelligent!

Since the widespread adoption of artificial intelligence tools, growing concerns have emerged regarding their use in judicial proceedings. Recent decisions have relied on section 342 of the Code of Civil Procedure to sanction parties who make improper use of such tools. More specifically, this provision has been invoked on several occasions to address the use or citation […]

So? Is it settled or not?

In an interim decision in Djaferian v. Spanoudakis,rendered on February 20, 2026, the Superior Court had to determine whether an offer made 15 months earlier, prior to the institution of proceedings, could still be accepted and result in a transaction. Summary of Facts and Timeline The Plaintiff, a co-owner who sustained water damage to his private […]

Office Parties and the Employer’s Duty to Prevent Harassment

In De Sousa and Corporation interactive Eidos, 2026 QCTAT 4, the Quebec Administrative Labour Tribunal (ALT) appears to have broadened the scope of an employer’s obligation to prevent harassment. The decision arose from a complaint filed by a former employee who had been sexually assaulted at her home by a colleague following an office party organized by the […]

Should Economic Losses Be Considered Property Damage?

The Quebec Court of Appeal in Zurich, Compagnie d’assurances SA c. CRT Construction inc., recently overturned the Superior Court’s decision on the interpretation of a construction insurance policy. Facts CRT Construction Inc. (“CRT”) was retained by the City of Montreal (“City”) to perform major construction work at the Atwater water treatment plant. At the City’s request, CRT […]