Newsletters

28

Caution Regarding Appeal Deadlines in Bankruptcy and Insolvency Matters!

In its recent decision in Syndic de Bopack inc. (2025 QCCA 909), the Quebec Court of Appeal reaffirmed the principle that, in matters governed by the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the deadline for filing a notice of appeal is ten days from the date of the judgment.

This principle is particularly important to bear in mind, as in civil matters, the time limit for filing an appeal is calculated from the date of the notice of judgment, provided the judgment was not delivered orally at the hearing.

Moreover, particular attention must be paid to appeals in bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings, as the time limit for filing an appeal is ten days, in contrast to the standard thirty-day period applicable in civil matters1.

In Syndic de Bopack inc. the appellants, having failed to file a notice of appeal within the ten-day delay, petitioned the Court of Appeal to be relieved of their default in appealing the judgment rendered by the Superior Court within the prescribed delay.

The Court of Appeal considered the following criteria:

  1. whether the appellants intended to appeal the decision prior to the expiration of the ten-day statutory delay;
  2. whether they communicated this intention to the respondent within this delay, either implicitly or explicitly, and, if so, the reasons for their failure to do so;
  3. whether the respondent would suffer prejudice as a result of an extension of the time limit; and
  4. whether the appeal had a reasonable chance of success.

The Court of Appeal found that, although the appellants’ failure to file their notice of appeal within the prescribed delay was due to an error on the part of their lawyers, the appellants had not manifested their intention to appeal the Superior Court’s judgment within the ten-day delay.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeal concluded that the appeal did not present a reasonable chance of success and accordingly dismissed the appellants’ motion to be relieved of their failure to appeal within the applicable delay.

Me Annie Claude Beauchemin and Me Juliana Boutot represented the respondent in this case, both in front of the Superior Cour and the Court of Appeal.

1Except in the cases provided for in article 361 of the Code of Civil Procedure

28

Authors

Articles in the same category

Who Must Be Represented by a Lawyer? Beware of Sanctions!

In civil matters, self-represented litigants are increasingly common before the Quebec courts. This possibility is expressly provided for in article 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.C.P.”), which allows any person to be self-represented. However, this right is subject to several exceptions outlined in article 87 C.C.P., which provides mandatory legal representation in certain […]

Latent and Costly Defects

Can buyers of a property with latent defects resell it and claim from their seller the difference between the two transactions? This is one of the questions addressed by the Superior Court in Ouellette c. Blais, 2024 QCCS 1025, upheld by the Court of Appeal on May 26, 2025. The Facts: Charmed by a large […]

If it is Excluded, No Obligation to Defend Rules the Court of Appeal

The Québec Court of Appeal has just issued an important decision for the insurance industry: Intact Insurance Company v. Hydromec Inc., 2025 QCCA 803, overturning a Wellington-type order that had been granted at first instance. A quick reminder: a Wellington motion allows an insured to compel their insurer to take up their defense as soon […]

Rain or Shine: Perhaps Not Between Insurers and Insureds

Human activity has been clearly identified as the main cause behind the rapid rise in greenhouse gas emissions, which in turn is the leading cause of climate change1. Although the Paris Agreement, adopted by 196 countries, including Canada—sought to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, scientists now agree that this target […]

Splitting the Proceedings: Leaving the Table Before the Main Course

On June 23, 2025, in 9219-1568 Québec inc. c. Sovereign General Insurance Company, the Honourable Luc Morin ordered the split of the proceedings based on the principles of proportionality and effective case management in the context of insurance coverage dispute between the parties. Facts Plaintiffs, ten (10) separate entities of Aylo, formerly known as MindGeek […]

Late-Night Fries, a Criminal Tenant, Illicit Activities, and False Statements: A Sufficient Cocktail for Denial of Insurance Coverage, According to the Court

In the case St-Amour v. Promutuel Boréale, société mutuelle d’assurances générales[1], the owner of a rental property submitted an insurance claim for significant damage caused to the building following a fire started by his tenant, who had left a pot of oil unattended on a propane stove. Following the insurer’s refusal to indemnify, plaintiff instituted […]