Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope and permissibility of substantial amendments to an originating application shortly before expiry of the case management (mise en état) deadline, under article 206 C.p.c.
• Characterisation of “response-like” allegations to a defence as permissible amendments rather than an inadmissible procedural step, and their impact on the interests of justice and delay.
• Threshold for striking allegations under article 169 C.p.c., including how broadly “relevance” and “utility” are interpreted at the case management stage.
• Extent of the defendants’ rights to conduct an additional pre-trial examination limited to new allegations and new documentary exhibits following significant amendments.
• Application of article 342 C.p.c. to sanction important breaches of case-management orders, including late responses to written interrogatories and failure to meet expert-report deadlines.
• Criteria guiding extensions of the mise en état deadline where significant amendments, outstanding discovery steps and party availability are in play.

Factual background

Louis-Olivier Lamontagne was hired on 28 July 2018 by Financière Banque Nationale (FBN), a brokerage firm, as an investment advisor and joined a team led by co-defendants Nancy Paré and Luc St-Amand. He was dismissed for cause on 28 November 2020. He alleges that the dismissal was without serious cause and that his employer failed to honour its contractual obligations. In his original claim, Lamontagne sought a total of 625,563.69 $ in damages from FBN, including salary in lieu of six months’ notice, an unpaid bonus, compensation related to his participation in the pension plan, and reimbursement of an amount he says he paid but is contractually entitled to recover from his employer. He also claims that FBN, Paré and St-Amand were unjustly enriched after his dismissal by appropriating his client base, for which he seeks 350,000 $ in solidary damages from all defendants. Over the course of the proceedings, the timeline for putting the case in a state to be set down for trial (mise en état) was extended six times, the last extension setting the deadline at 5 May 2025.

The amended claim and expanded damages

On the very day the mise en état deadline expired, 5 May 2025, Lamontagne notified a modified originating application (DII modifiée). This amended pleading was substantial: it added more than 85 new paragraphs to the original 39, increased the amounts claimed under several heads of damage, introduced four new heads of damage (troubles and inconvenience, moral damages, punitive damages, and “other sum due”), referred to new evidentiary exhibits, modified several existing paragraphs and conclusions, and added a new conclusion. As a result of these amendments, the claim for damages against FBN for unjust dismissal rose to 853,050.44 $, and the unjust enrichment claim against all defendants was increased to 476,940.57 $. In addition, the plaintiff now sought an extra 100,000 $ in solidary liability from all defendants based on the manner of his dismissal, under the headings of troubles and inconvenience, moral damages and punitive damages. The defendants did not contest his right to amend in order to increase the quantum of damages, introduce new heads of damage tied to the manner of dismissal, or complete the statements and conclusions of the original application. Their challenge focused on a specific block of new paragraphs, 37.7 to 37.65, which were framed as a detailed “response” to the defendants’ defence.

Procedural objections and case management issues

By a case management notice dated 7 May 2025, the defendants opposed paragraphs 37.7 to 37.65 of the amended application, arguing that these amendments were unnecessary, inadmissible, contrary to the interests of justice, distorted the original claim, and unduly delayed the proceedings. In the alternative, they asked that these same paragraphs be struck under article 169 C.p.c. if the amendments were otherwise allowed. They also sought permission to examine the plaintiff on the new facts and exhibits, an order compelling production of certain exhibits (P-3.1, P-3.3 and P-13.3), a declaration that the plaintiff’s conduct amounted to an important breach of the proper conduct of the proceedings under article 342 C.p.c. accompanied by a 5,000 $ compensatory sanction, and an extension of the mise en état deadline to 8 August 2025. For his part, the plaintiff orally sought leave to amend (rather than by written motion as article 2017 C.p.c. formally envisages, a procedural point the defendants did not contest), agreed to be examined on the new allegations and to produce the requested exhibits within five days, accepted that the mise en état deadline should be extended (but to 15 September 2025) and opposed the remaining elements of the defendants’ management notice.

Amendments framed as a “response” and the article 206 C.p.c. test

The contested paragraphs 37.7 to 37.65 appeared under the heading “IV. LA RÉPONSE DU DEMANDEUR À LA DÉFENSE DES DÉFENDEURS”. They set out some 58 paragraphs where the plaintiff directly answered specific allegations from the defence, cross-referencing that defence by paragraph. Some examples included allegations about changes to the bonus formula taken from an examination of a representative (Mr. Pintal), contentions about entitlement to restricted stock units and deferred compensation for the 2020 fiscal year, and an expanded explanation of the unjust enrichment theory. Substantively, these paragraphs resembled the “réponse” pleading that was available under the former Code of Civil Procedure but is no longer provided for in the current Code; the “réponse” now mentioned in article 145 C.p.c. is a different procedural vehicle. The judge noted that, although the label and structure used by the plaintiff were inorthodox and contrary to the spirit of article 99 C.p.c., the issue had to be resolved under the substantive amendment rule in article 206 C.p.c. Under that provision, amendments before judgment are the rule, not the exception, and they may be made at any time provided they do not unduly delay the proceeding, do not offend the interests of justice, and do not transform the claim into an entirely new demand unrelated to the original cause of action. The burden lies on the party opposing amendment to show that one of these exceptional grounds applies. Applying this test, the court held that the objections failed. The new paragraphs, while procedurally unconventional, did not offend the interests of justice as that concept has been interpreted in relation to amendments. They were not shown to be useless, disproportionate, or abusive; nor did they meaningfully upset procedural fairness. Although the amendments were served at the very end of the mise en état period, the Code expressly allows modification at any time before judgment, and mere lateness is not sufficient to refuse an amendment unless the evidence shows that the true purpose is to obtain delay. Here, the delay effect was modest and had little or no impact on the likely trial date. Finally, the amendments did not create a new, unrelated cause of action: the case remained a claim for unjust dismissal against FBN and unjust enrichment against Paré and St-Amand.

Request to strike the contested paragraphs

Turning to the alternative request to strike paragraphs 37.7 to 37.65 under article 169 C.p.c., the court analysed the notion of “absence of relevance” in light of article 2857 C.c.Q. and Supreme Court and Court of Appeal jurisprudence. At the case management stage, the concept of relevance is interpreted broadly as “usefulness” to the conduct of the instance rather than strict trial-stage probative relevance. The question is whether the allegations and corresponding evidence are useful, appropriate and capable of advancing the debate, assessed in relation to the cause of action and the conclusions sought. Because the case law strongly cautions against striking allegations except in clear cases, and instructs judges to leave borderline questions of admissibility and weight to the trial judge, the threshold for striking at this stage is high. Applying this standard, the judge concluded that the new factual allegations in paragraphs 37.7 to 37.65 were connected to the issues in dispute and could help structure or clarify the debate on wrongful dismissal, bonus calculation, deferred compensation and unjust enrichment. Prudence therefore militated against removing them. The defendants’ request for striking was rejected, leaving the entire block of “response-style” allegations in the pleadings for assessment at trial.

Pre-trial examination and document production

Given that the plaintiff’s substantial amendments were being allowed, and given his consent, the court authorised the defendants to conduct an additional pre-trial examination of Lamontagne, limited to two hours and confined to the new allegations, new conclusions and new exhibits added in the amended application. This balanced the plaintiff’s broad amendment rights with the defendants’ right to test and explore the new factual material before trial. The court also ordered the plaintiff, in line with his undertakings, to disclose exhibits P-3.1, P-3.3 and P-13.3 within five days of the judgment. These directions ensured that the evidentiary record would be updated to correspond to the expanded narrative and damage claims in the amended pleading.

Sanction for important breach of the conduct of the proceedings

A central issue was whether the plaintiff’s conduct amounted to an “important breach” of the proper conduct of the instance under article 342 C.p.c., justifying a financial sanction payable to the defendants. The defendants argued that he had behaved in a dilatory manner and failed to respect an earlier case management order of 29 October 2024, particularly regarding deadlines for written interrogatories and expert evidence. The plaintiff denied any important breach and countered that the delays stemmed from the defendants’ refusal to provide an unredacted version of an Excel document (“ENA LOL 2020”), which he said was essential for his accounting expert to complete a report; he also argued that the defendants had not proven their claimed amount of 5,000 $. The judge reconstructed the procedural chronology: pre-trial examinations and undertakings in June 2023; partial document production in January 2024 (including a redacted version of the Excel file); a 5 January 2024 case management notice where the plaintiff did not seek a ruling on the objection to that file; a 2 May 2024 decision largely upholding the defendants’ objections but ordering production of another document; an order of 29 October 2024 extending the mise en état deadline to 8 May 2025 and fixing specific dates for written interrogatories to the plaintiff and for exchange of expert reports; and finally the plaintiff’s late response to written questions on 8 April 2025 and his failure to serve his expert report by 7 February 2025 despite repeated defence requests. The court found that the plaintiff had answered the written interrogatories more than three months late without any explanation and had not complied with the expert-report deadline. It considered his attempts to justify this failure—principally the argument that an unredacted Excel file was indispensable for the expert report and that the earlier judgment did not decide access to that version—to be contradictory and lacking in seriousness, particularly given that he had held a redacted version since January 2024, had not raised the redaction issue in prior management hearings, and only sought a revision of the May 2024 ruling in mid-May 2025. This pattern of behaviour was held to be unreasonable, inconsistent with his duty to act diligently and transparently, and contrary to the guiding principles of civil procedure. The court therefore characterised it as an important breach within the meaning of article 342 C.p.c. However, drawing on appellate guidance that article 342 C.p.c. is primarily punitive rather than compensatory, and mindful that detailed fee notes are not essential but their absence counts against a high award, the judge fixed a modest sanction. He ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants 500 $ as a proportionate, disciplinary compensation for the extra work his non-compliance had caused, rather than the 5,000 $ sought.

Extension of the mise en état deadline

Finally, the court addressed the competing requests to extend the case’s mise en état deadline. The defendants asked for an extension to 8 August 2025, mainly to accommodate their limited additional discovery needs after the amendments. The plaintiff agreed an extension was necessary but sought a longer period, to 15 September 2025, citing the volume of work required to complete the file and his own schedule over the coming weeks and the summer period. Given the breadth of the amendments, the need to complete further examinations and documentary exchanges, and the practical constraints invoked, the court found the plaintiff’s arguments persuasive. It extended the deadline for filing the unilateral request for trial and judgment to 15 September 2025 and awarded costs of justice. The merits of the wrongful dismissal and unjust enrichment claims remain to be tried; at this stage, the only quantified monetary order is the 500 $ sanction in favour of the defendants, and the exact amount of costs cannot be determined from the judgment.