Newsletters

Same Approach, Same Result…

In a recent decision, Michel Grenier v. Me Julie Charbonneau, Roger Picard and Conseil de discipline de l’Ordre des psychologues du Québec, rendered on June 4, 2025, the Superior Court revisited the principles applicable to the immunity of members of a professional order’s disciplinary council to rule on a Motion to Dismiss. The delay to […]

Reversing the Burden One Step at a Time…

In civil liability cases involving personal injury, the burden of proof and witness credibility often become pivotal. This was the case in Lamothe c. Beaudoin, rendered on April, 15, 2025, by the Superior Court of Québec, where the plaintiffs—Lamothe and Simon—sought damages following Lamothe’s fall down a staircase in the defendants’ property. Relying on the […]

Fire Destroys a Building: Are the Firefighters to Blame?

In a decision rendered on April 11, 2025, the Court of Appeal ruled on the issue of relative immunity for a municipal fire department’s actions in the case of Leduc v. Durham-Sud Municipality. During the night of March 17 to 18, 2019, a duplex owned by the plaintiffs in the Municipality of Durham-Sud (“Municipality”) was […]

An Automobile Accident Is Not Necessarily an Automobile Accident

Our readers will recall that many decisions have been rendered in recent years analyzing, in very specific cases, what might constitute an automobile accident under the Automobile Insurance Act (AIA). Several decisions have been rendered by both the Supreme Court of Canada[1] and the Court of Appeal[2]. The Administrative Tribunal of Québec (TAQ) recently rendered […]

Nothing Lasts Forever (Not Even a Lifetime Warranty)

In a recent judgment, Hamann v. Matériaux de construction Oldcastle Canada inc., 2024 QCCA 1705, the Québec Court of Appeal (the “CA”) confirmed a ruling of the Québec Superior Court (the “SC”) dismissing an originating application because of the applicant’s failure to institute proceedings within three years of discovering damage to his roof tiles, which […]

1, 2, 3, and the Dishwasher Goes…

No, it was not a former Minister of Energy who made it disappear, but rather a planned obsolescence, carefully concealed in the complexities of the manufacturing components so that the product purchased becomes defective, coercing you to replace it sooner. Fortunately, the Government has responded, and we explain how. Introduction In June 2023, the Minister […]

The Excavator Lost Its Mind, But The Court Of Appeal Did Not!

You may recall our newsletter of July 17, 2023, summarizing a judgment concerning the important burden placed on a manufacturer by the Civil Code of Québec (C.C.Q.). In AIG Insurance Company of Canada et al. v. Mécano Mobile R.L. Inc. et al. 2023 QCCS 1935, the Superior Court dismissed the insurer’s claim against the manufacturer/seller, […]

Fraudulent Statements: Always a Question of Credibility… and of Interest!

In a recent judgment, the Court of Appeal reviews and confirms the Superior Court’s decision in Paul-Hus v. Sun Life Assurance Company, which was commented on in our newsletter of October 31, 2023. Review of the facts On March 13, 2015, Automobiles Illimitées, of which the applicant Paul-Hus is the sole shareholder, applied for a […]

Construction and Loss of the Work: When Does the Countdown Start?

When it comes to prescription, it is often difficult to determine a starting point and a precise calculation, especially when the damage or loss manifests gradually. This issue was analyzed in a very recent judgment rendered by the Honourable Marie Ève Bélanger in Syndicat des Copropriétaires du 600, de la Gare v. Village de la […]

Bill 56 — Family Law Reform and Parental Union Regime

The National Assembly of Quebec has adopted Bill 56 entitled An Act respecting family law reform and establishing the parental union regime, which will come into force on June 30, 2025. This initiative will introduce the parental union regime which will apply to de facto spouses that will become parents of the same child after […]

When Water Rules Out Any Possibility of Compensation

The Superior Court recently ruled on the interpretation of an exclusion clause for damages resulting from a flood, in Gestion Michel Bernard inc. v. Promutuel Chaudière-Appalaches, Société mutuelle d’assurance générale[1]. Summary of the Facts The Plaintiffs are the owners of a building located in Beauceville and the operators of a restaurant located in that building. […]
   ...