Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Running of the three-year prescription period for the insurer’s subrogated claim following the warehouse collapse and timing of the amended claim against the individual directors
• Effect of the insurer’s initial action against the construction company on prescription vis-à-vis the directors, who are alleged to be liable in solidum rather than as solidary co-debtors
• Factual uncertainty regarding when the insurer reasonably became aware of a distinct cause of action against the directors based on their alleged personal faults and bad faith conduct
• Scope of directors’ potential personal liability for misrepresentations about insurance coverage, failure to supervise the site, and failure to retain an engineer for temporary bracing of long-span trusses
• Allegations that the directors acted in bad faith by dissolving a related holding company and retaining an indemnity from another insurer, and whether these acts can ground personal liability
• Limits of a preliminary motion to dismiss (demande en irrecevabilité) where prescription depends on mixed questions of fact and law that require a full evidentiary record

Facts of the case

Compagnie d’assurance Definity insured Les Fermes Michel Beaulieu, an agricultural enterprise having a warehouse constructed by Construction SLBD inc. In the course of construction, on 24 July 2022, the warehouse structure collapsed, causing significant repair costs. The insured, Les Fermes Michel Beaulieu, submitted a claim to its insurer, Definity, for the loss. In December 2022, Definity indemnified its insured and, under Québec subrogation rules, stepped into its insured’s shoes to pursue recovery against any parties responsible for the loss. The factual backdrop relates to alleged deficiencies in temporary bracing (contreventements temporaires) of long-span roof trusses during construction, which are said to have contributed to the collapse of the partially built structure. Definity attributes responsibility primarily to SLBD as the contractor in charge of the project.

Procedural background

After paying the indemnity, Definity commenced proceedings as subrogated insurer. In October 2024, it filed an originating application (Demande) against Construction SLBD inc., alleging that the collapse was caused by SLBD’s construction faults, particularly the insufficiency of temporary bracing. At that stage, the claim was directed only at the corporation. On 25 February 2025, Definity conducted a pre-trial examination of one of SLBD’s directors, Sammy Lamarre. Following information allegedly learned at that examination, Definity decided to broaden its claim. On 23 and 24 July 2025, it served an amended originating application (Demande modifiée) adding two individual defendants, Sammy Lamarre and Benoit Dulude, as defendants in solidum with SLBD. The amended application was officially filed with the court clerk on 29 July 2025. Lamarre and Dulude then brought a procedural motion—styled as a “demande en rejet” but treated by the court as a demande en irrecevabilité under article 168 of the Code of Civil Procedure—arguing that the action against them personally was prescribed when the amended pleading was filed. The hearing of this motion took place on 15 October 2025 before the Superior Court of Québec (Desfossés J.).

Allegations against the corporate defendant and the directors

In the amended application, Definity maintains its core allegation that SLBD, as contractor, is responsible for the collapse because of temporary bracing that was allegedly inadequate for the long-span trusses. As to the individual defendants, Definity’s case rests on a series of distinct alleged faults. First, Lamarre, in his capacity as a director of SLBD, is said to have incorrectly represented to the insured that SLBD had a builder’s risk or job-site insurance policy covering the performance of its contract. This alleged misrepresentation could have influenced the insured’s willingness to contract or its understanding of risk allocation on the project. Second, Lamarre is accused of failing in his site-supervision responsibilities, suggesting a direct operational fault separate from any corporate breach. Third, Lamarre is alleged to have committed a fault by not ensuring that an engineer was retained to provide a plan for installation and bracing of the long-span roof trusses. This points to a failure to secure appropriate engineering input for temporary works, which is often a key construction-safety measure. Fourth, both Lamarre and Dulude, as administrators of SLBD, are said to have engaged their personal liability by acting in bad faith through (1) voluntarily dissolving a management company that was a shareholder of SLBD, and (2) retaining, without right, an indemnity received from another insurer. These allegations, if proven, seek to pierce the usual separation between corporate and personal liability by framing the directors’ actions as bad faith conduct beyond normal business risk.

Insurance and subrogation framework

Although the judgment does not reproduce or analyze specific insurance policy clauses, it clearly rests on standard Québec insurance and subrogation principles. Definity paid an indemnity to its insured for the loss following the collapse and was thereby subrogated, up to the amount paid, into the insured’s rights against any third-party wrongdoers. The court reiterates that an insurer exercising subrogatory rights cannot acquire greater rights than those of the insured, including in respect of the applicable prescription period for the cause of action. The claim against SLBD and the directors is therefore framed as the insured’s original right of action, now pursued by the insurer. The legal focus of this decision, however, is not on policy wording or coverage disputes; rather, it is on whether the subrogated action against the directors has become time-barred. No specific policy exclusions, conditions, or clauses are identified as being directly in issue in this judgment, beyond the general notion that payment of the indemnity triggered subrogation.

Legal issues on prescription and admissibility

The central issue is whether the amended claim against Lamarre and Dulude is inadmissible because it is prescribed. Under Québec civil law, an action to enforce a personal right is generally subject to a three-year prescription period, which runs from the day the cause of action arises. In the context of civil liability, the prescription period starts only when the three elements—fault, damage, and causal link—are present, and knowledge of the damage is viewed as the most decisive factor for the starting point. The insurer’s claim against SLBD is accepted as timely: the collapse occurred on 24 July 2022, and the original action against SLBD was launched in October 2024, well within the three-year period. For Lamarre and Dulude, however, the position is more complex. If they are liable, it is as debtors in solidum with SLBD, not as solidary co-debtors, which has a key consequence for prescription. Interruption of prescription against one debtor (here, SLBD) does not automatically extend to debtors in solidum; it only extends to solidary co-debtors. The directors thus argued that by the time the amended application naming them was filed on 29 July 2025, more than three years had elapsed since 24 July 2022, rendering the claim against them prescribed. They relied on the strict timeline of the collapse, the general three-year rule, and the fact that the original proceeding did not name them personally.

Court’s analysis of the preliminary motion

The court approached the motion under article 168 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows a party to raise the inadmissibility of a demand on the basis that it is not founded in law, even assuming all alleged facts to be true. In such a context, the judge must consider only the facts pleaded, taken as true, while retaining discretion over their legal characterization. Because granting such a motion disposes of a claim without trial, the court stresses that prudence is required. Lamarre and Dulude argued that the dates set out in the pleadings and documents make it clear that the claim against them is prescribed. Definity, in contrast, maintained that it only became aware of a distinct cause of action against the directors at Lamarre’s pre-trial examination in February 2025, meaning the prescription period could not fairly be considered to have started back in July 2022 as to them personally. The judge concluded that prescription was not “clearly” apparent on the face of the amended application. On one hand, the factual allegations could potentially support the insurer’s position that its actionable knowledge of the directors’ personal faults arose later than the date of the physical damage. On the other hand, the exact date when all elements of the cause of action against the directors—fault, damage, and causal link—were legally and factually present could not be reliably fixed at this preliminary stage. The question of prescription thus intertwined mixed issues of fact and law that required a fuller evidentiary record. The court emphasized that to grant the motion as framed by the directors, it would have to first discount the factual and legal basis of Definity’s allegations, then find that prescription was plainly established—something that could not be done merely from the pleadings. Because doubt remained in the judge’s mind, that doubt militated in favour of allowing the litigation to proceed to trial.

Outcome and implications

In the result, the Superior Court rejected the motion by Lamarre and Dulude to have the amended originating application declared inadmissible for prescription. The judge held that the prescription issue could not be conclusively resolved at the preliminary stage, and that the proper forum for determining whether the claim against the directors is in fact prescribed—or whether they bear any liability at all—is the trial on the merits, after evidence is presented. The decision makes clear that refusal to strike the claim does not predetermine the outcome; the trial judge may yet find that the action is prescribed or that the defendants bear no responsibility once the factual record is complete. As a practical matter, however, the ruling underscores that where prescription hinges on nuanced factual questions, especially relating to when a plaintiff reasonably became aware of a specific cause of action against particular actors, courts will be reluctant to terminate the action on a preliminary motion. In this judgment, Definity emerges as the successful party on the procedural motion, as the court dismisses the directors’ demande en irrecevabilité with costs in its favour. The court does not, however, fix or quantify any damages, indemnity, or even the precise amount of costs in this decision; accordingly, while Definity succeeds on the motion, the total monetary award, including costs and any ultimate damages, cannot be determined from this judgment alone.