Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope of res judicata where earlier class-type nuisance claims about heavy trucking and neighbourhood disturbances were dismissed and later similar proceedings are brought against the same company.
• Proper analytical framework for res judicata under article 2848 C.c.Q., including whether the triple identity of parties, object and cause is satisfied on the new injunctive and damages claim.
• Appellate reviewability of a judgment dismissing a motion to dismiss (irrecevabilité) and the circumstances in which leave to appeal should be granted under articles 30, 31 and 357 C.p.c.
• Whether the new proceedings constitute an abuse of process under articles 51 and following C.p.c. given the prior 2022 Superior Court judgment and subsequent appellate history.
• Impact of findings in the 2022 judgment that Bau-Val’s truck-related inconveniences were “normal” for the area, and how those findings bear on the new allegations of abnormal neighbourhood annoyances and environmental prejudice.
• Procedural implications of granting leave to appeal, including suspension of the Superior Court proceedings and strict page and filing limits for the parties’ written submissions.

Background and parties

Bau-Val inc. operates an industrial business dedicated to the manufacture of bituminous concrete and the sale of specialized products for the maintenance and repair of roads and buildings, with installations located on Chemin de la Butte-aux-Renards (CBR). The company’s activities involve heavy truck traffic to and from its facilities. The respondent, Steve Riis-Christensen, personally and as mandatary for 23 residents living on CBR, claims they suffer prejudice, abnormal neighbourhood annoyances, and an impairment of their environmental quality and rights to peaceful enjoyment and free disposition of their property due to Bau-Val’s heavy trucking. Their current Superior Court action seeks interlocutory and permanent injunctions as well as compensatory and punitive damages.

Prior proceedings and res judicata context

Bau-Val argues that the new action is barred by res judicata (autorité de la chose jugée) under article 2848 C.c.Q. It points to a 2022 Superior Court judgment in large-scale nuisance litigation brought by CBR residents against several defendants, including Bau-Val and Groupe CRH Canada inc. In that earlier case, residents alleged that since at least 2014 they had suffered serious prejudice and grave abnormal neighbourhood annoyances caused by commercial and industrial operations of Carrière Demix and Bau-Val in Varennes, as well as KPH installations in Montréal in the context of the Turcot project. The claims sought permanent injunctions, declaratory relief, compensatory damages and exemplary (punitive) damages. The 2022 judgment held that, for the period 2014–2021, whatever inconveniences Bau-Val may have caused were the type a reasonable person residing on CBR would consider normal, given the nature and location of the road, the type of activities conducted by Bau-Val, and the use of CBR by Bau-Val for more than 50 years. As a result, only the claim against CRH was partially upheld, based on particularly heavy trucking in 2016–2017 linked to the Turcot project’s peripheral activities. The claims against Bau-Val were dismissed, and that dismissal was confirmed by the Quebec Court of Appeal in 2024. An application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was refused in January 2025.

The Superior Court judgment under appeal

In the present proceedings, Bau-Val brought a motion in the Superior Court seeking dismissal of Riis-Christensen’s new action as inadmissible, invoking res judicata under article 2848 C.c.Q. It further argued, in the alternative, that the action was abusive under articles 51 and following of the Code of Civil Procedure because there were no new circumstances justifying a re-litigation of issues already determined in 2022. On 13 January 2026, the Superior Court (Larocque J.) rejected Bau-Val’s plea of inadmissibility based on res judicata, and also dismissed its abuse-of-process argument. The judge concluded that the new claim was not barred and allowed the proceedings to continue. That ruling did not decide the underlying merits of liability or damages; it simply allowed the case to go forward.

Application for leave to appeal

Bau-Val applied to the Quebec Court of Appeal for permission to appeal this interlocutory decision, also seeking suspension of the Superior Court proceedings if leave were granted. Ordinarily, a judgment dismissing an inadmissibility motion is not appealable because it does not decide the merits nor cause irreparable prejudice; the parties remain free to argue the case at trial. However, Quebec appellate jurisprudence recognizes an exception where res judicata is at issue: because res judicata can definitively bar litigation, appellate intervention at an early stage may sometimes be warranted. Even in that context, leave to appeal is discretionary and must serve the interests of justice.

Key legal issues before the Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal, sitting as a single judge, had to decide whether Bau-Val’s proposed appeal met the criteria for leave. The core issue was whether the question of res judicata, involving the triple identity of parties, object, and cause under article 2848 C.c.Q., warranted appellate review in light of the 2022 judgment and subsequent appellate history. Bau-Val submitted that the same residents, the same road, and the same pattern of heavy trucking and neighbourhood disturbance were at the heart of both proceedings, such that the object and cause of the action were already determined. The company also maintained that the Superior Court judge had applied the wrong procedural framework, analyzing the matter under article 168, paragraph 2 C.p.c., rather than using the proper frame for res judicata and inadmissibility. Further, Bau-Val argued that the judge had failed to address, in any substantive way, its alternative argument that the new claim was abusive. The Court of Appeal considered that these submissions raised questions of law that merited attention. It noted that resolving the res judicata issue on appeal could avoid a long and costly trial if the appeal succeeded. Moreover, the apparent omission to deal adequately with the abuse-of-process argument also justified consideration by a full panel of the Court.

Procedural orders and conduct of the appeal

Having concluded that the proposed appeal served the interests of justice and satisfied the criteria under article 31, paragraph 2 C.p.c., the Court granted Bau-Val’s application for leave to appeal. It ordered that the appeal proceed without full factums, instead by way of written “exposés” not exceeding ten pages, in compliance with articles 13 and 58 of the Regulation of the Quebec Court of Appeal in civil matters. Strict deadlines were fixed: the appellant (Bau-Val) must file and serve its written submission by 29 May 2026, and the respondent (Riis-Christensen) must do so by 31 July 2026, including any necessary complementary annexes. The Court referred the file to the Master of the Rolls to schedule a 60-minute hearing, allocating 30 minutes of oral argument time to each party.

Suspension of the first-instance proceedings

Recognizing that the appeal could be determinative of whether the action may proceed at all, the Court of Appeal suspended the Superior Court proceedings in file number 505-17-015444-252 pending the outcome of the appeal, subject to any further order in light of how the case evolves. The Court also reminded the parties of the applicable rule on the caducity of appeals: if the appellant fails to file its written submission within the prescribed delay, the appeal will lapse and the clerk will issue a certificate of caducity, unless a judge grants an extension. Similarly, a party who fails to meet its filing deadlines may be precluded from filing and may not be heard at the hearing unless the Court authorizes it.

Outcome and monetary consequences

In this Court of Appeal decision, Bau-Val inc. is the successful party, as its application for leave to appeal is allowed, and the appeal is authorized to proceed under defined procedural parameters. However, the judgment is confined to procedural matters—granting leave, organizing written submissions, fixing hearing time, and suspending the Superior Court action. The Court expressly reserves the question of costs by stating that judicial costs are to follow the ultimate outcome of the appeal. There is no determination on the merits of liability, no award of compensatory or punitive damages, and no quantified order for costs at this stage. Accordingly, while Bau-Val succeeds in obtaining permission to appeal, the total monetary award, including any damages or costs in its favour, cannot be determined from this decision alone, as those questions remain to be decided in the subsequent appeal and, potentially, further proceedings.