Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope and continuation of pre-trial examinations of Innavik Hydro’s representatives after numerous objections to pre-engagement requests and a partial suspension of questioning
• Interpretation and application of the Code of Civil Procedure’s case management and proportionality principles (arts. 17–24, 158, 18, 19, 20, 21–22, 221 C.p.c.) in controlling duration and topics of examinations
• Impact of prior rulings on objections to pre-engagements and the large volume of newly produced documents on CRT’s right to complete its examinations
• Effect of Innavik’s amended and re-amended originating applications (in 2024 and 2025) on CRT’s entitlement to further questioning about new facts and allegations
• Judicial concern over excessive procedural skirmishes and repeated management hearings, in light of limited judicial resources and parties’ duty of cooperation
• Balancing CRT’s need for discovery on multi-million-dollar legal hypothecs and EPC extras against the need to avoid unduly prolonging the pre-trial phase

Background and underlying dispute

The dispute stems from the construction of a hydroelectric generating station under an EPC (Engineering, Procurement and Construction) contract signed on 10 June 2020 between Innavik Hydro, société en commandite (Innavik) and CRT Construction inc. (CRT). Innavik pleads that this EPC agreement is a fixed-price contract and that CRT has no valid claim for alleged extras. CRT maintains the opposite, relying on a substantial alleged receivable that underpins its security rights. In this context, CRT registered two legal hypothecs of construction (builders’ liens) against the project, one on 25 January 2023 in the amount of $57,768,015.50 and another on 25 October 2023 in the amount of $3,483,228.38, for a total approaching $62 million. In response, Innavik filed an originating application on 27 February 2023 seeking the cancellation (radiation) of both legal construction hypothecs and also claiming several million dollars in damages. CRT, for its part, seeks payment of the debt it says supports the hypothecs and has also proceeded by way of a cross-claim in separate proceedings. The case has already generated multiple management conferences and interlocutory judgments dealing with, among other things, expert evidence, suspension of the instance, and objections in discovery.

Procedural history of pre-trial examinations

Early in the case, the Superior Court set a timetable governing the first steps of the proceeding. On 7 July 2023, the Court ordered that CRT’s defence and cross-claim be filed by 2 August 2023, that pre-engagement (pre-examination) requests be sent by 19 July 2023, that responses be provided by 12 August 2023, and that examinations of three Innavik representatives—Messrs. Claude Chartrand, Louis Robert and François Hébert—be completed by 25 August 2023. The parties then filed a protocol of the instance dated 13 July 2023. At line 50 of that protocol, they agreed that CRT would examine the three Innavik representatives for a total duration of one day for all witnesses combined. The protocol, however, did not specify what would happen if an examination had to be suspended pending the resolution of objections to pre-engagements or documentary undertakings. On 19 July 2023, CRT served its pre-engagement request listing 36 specific items of information and documentation in preparation for the examinations of Messrs. Chartrand, Hébert and Robert. On 14 August 2023, Innavik responded, objecting to 26 of the 36 pre-engagement demands. CRT then sought, by management notice, to cancel the scheduled examinations until the Court could rule on those objections. Innavik insisted that CRT proceed with the examinations and that the objections be dealt with afterwards in a single hearing. CRT ultimately agreed to proceed with the scheduled examinations on 24 August 2023, with the understanding that a later hearing would address all outstanding objections.

Suspension of examinations and objections to pre-engagements

On 24 August 2023, CRT began the examinations of Innavik’s representatives. After approximately half a day of questioning, CRT suspended the examinations, explaining on the record that the process should pause until the Court could decide on Innavik’s numerous objections to pre-engagements and to certain undertakings. The same approach was adopted for each of the three witnesses. In the months that followed, Innavik provided responses to non-contested undertakings from the 24 August examinations, but maintained its objections on the pre-engagement requests. The file then went through a protracted and complex interlocutory phase, with many steps and motions that are not all detailed in this judgment. The hearing to decide the pre-engagement objections finally took place on 24 April 2025. On 26 May 2025, Justice Robert Leckey issued a judgment rejecting the majority of Innavik’s objections. Following that decision, on 8 September 2025 Innavik transmitted to CRT a substantial volume of documents in response to the pre-engagement requests, and sent further documents on 30 October 2025, while the parties still disagreed as to whether Innavik had fully complied with the May 2025 judgment.

Amendments to Innavik’s originating application

Parallel to the discovery skirmishes, Innavik amended its pleadings. On 31 May 2024, roughly nine months after the first round of examinations, Innavik filed an amended originating application. On 18 July 2025, it filed a re-amended originating application. These amended pleadings added new alleged facts and expanded or reshaped certain aspects of Innavik’s claims relating to the hydroelectric project, the EPC contract, delays, reception of the works and related issues. The Court in this judgment highlights that these amendments alone justify additional questioning of Innavik’s representatives, since CRT must be allowed to test and explore the new allegations through examination before trial. The judge also notes the extensive documentary production made by Innavik in execution of Justice Leckey’s May 2025 ruling, which further supports giving CRT an opportunity to question witnesses regarding those new documents.

Legal framework and principles applied

Because the 13 July 2023 protocol of the instance governs the file, the Court begins by recalling article 221 of the Code of Civil Procedure, under which pre-trial examinations must be contemplated in the protocol, including the number of examinations and their duration. In this case, the protocol provided for three examinations (Chartrand, Robert and Hébert) over a total of one day, but remained silent on the consequences of suspending an examination pending the outcome of objections. In the absence of agreement, the Court had to make a case management order under article 158, first paragraph, subparagraph 3 C.p.c., guided by the general procedural principles. The Court relies heavily on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Lavigne c. 6040993 Canada inc., which holds that any management measure must be decided with reference to the overarching principles set out in articles 17 to 24 C.p.c. Those include the right to be heard and the adversarial nature of proceedings (art. 17), proportionality (art. 18), sound management and proper conduct of proceedings (art. 19), cooperation and information duties (art. 20), and rules concerning witnesses, including experts (arts. 21–22). They must also be read in light of the preliminary provision of the C.p.c., emphasizing efficiency, accessibility, and a just, simple, proportionate, and economical application of procedure. The judge distills a general rule from case law: subject to the protocol, where a party suspends an examination because objections to pre-engagements or undertakings must first be resolved, that party normally retains the right to resume the examination once a judgment on the objections has been rendered. Ideally, the objections judgment itself sets the parameters for resuming the examination. An exception arises only if the party being examined can show that continuing the examination would run counter to the guiding procedural principles—taking into account factors such as the length originally agreed in the protocol and the actual time already spent before suspension. In each instance, the assessment is fact-specific.

Arguments of the parties on the continuation of examinations

Innavik argued that CRT should not be allowed to resume the examinations because CRT had not demonstrated any real necessity; because, in its view, CRT had not been obstructed during the first half-day of questioning; and because CRT would not be deprived of any substantive right if no further examinations took place, given that the pre-trial evidence gathering should end and the matter should move to trial. Innavik thus framed the request as disproportionate and unnecessary delay. The Court rejects these arguments. It notes that CRT suspended the examinations specifically and transparently to have the objections to pre-engagements and undertakings adjudicated first, that the majority of Innavik’s objections were later dismissed, and that Innavik then produced hundreds of pages of documents following the May 2025 ruling. In these circumstances, the Court finds that CRT has clearly established the need to resume examinations to question on the new documents and new allegations. Furthermore, given the very high amounts in dispute and the fact that the examinations were stopped after only half a day, while the protocol contemplated a full day, authorizing further examinations is not contrary to proportionality.

Scope and duration of permitted further examinations

CRT initially sought a substantial amount of additional time: four extra hours for Mr. Chartrand, two for Mr. Hébert and one for Mr. Robert, for a total of seven hours, beyond the half-day already used. In light of the original agreement limiting all three examinations to one day, the Court considers CRT’s request unreasonable and inconsistent with proportionality, with the risk of unduly prolonging preparation of the case. The judge therefore crafts a compromise. CRT is authorized to continue the examinations, but within a sharply limited maximum total of 3.5 hours. Specifically, CRT may examine Mr. Chartrand for an additional two hours, Mr. Hébert for one hour, and Mr. Robert for half an hour. The Court also strictly defines the topics that may be covered in the resumed examinations. The questioning must relate solely to (i) new facts alleged in Innavik’s amended originating application of 31 May 2024 and re-amended originating application of 18 July 2025, and (ii) topics that directly flow from documents produced by Innavik to CRT in compliance with the May 2025 judgment. Moreover, the Court insists on avoiding duplication. Only one witness may be questioned on any given subject. CRT’s counsel accepted this rule in the hearing. By way of illustration, the judgment explains that CRT will not be permitted to question both Mr. Robert or Mr. Hébert on a document produced in response to pre-engagement PE-2(c) if the matters raised by that document have already been fully explored with Mr. Chartrand. CRT must carefully allocate topics among the three witnesses and ensure it remains within the authorized overall time limits.

Judicial admonition on overuse of court resources

In closing, the judge underscores a prior warning from Justice Guylène Beaugé, who had commented in a March 2024 decision that the case had already required a fifth management hearing just one year after filing, which she considered excessive given limited judicial resources. She urged the parties to focus their seemingly unlimited means on preparing the case for trial, rather than on repeated procedural skirmishes. The current judge notes that nearly two years have passed since that admonition and that, despite it, motions and management steps have continued to multiply. The parties, in the Court’s view, are not respecting their duty of cooperation or the proportionality principle set out in article 18 C.p.c. This criticism serves as a reminder that case management powers will increasingly be used to curb procedural excesses and keep complex commercial disputes on a reasonable procedural track.

Outcome and identification of the successful party

In this judgment, the Superior Court partially grants CRT’s management request dated 16 October 2025 regarding the continuation of examinations of Innavik’s representatives. CRT is thus the successful party, but only in part, because the Court substantially reduces the amount of additional examination time requested and tightly cabins the permissible subject matter. The Court orders that the resumed examinations of Messrs. Chartrand, Hébert and Robert be held within 45 days of the judgment, subject to any further decisions arising from a later hearing scheduled for 18 March 2026. The disposition is made “with costs” (“avec frais de justice”), meaning costs follow the event according to the usual rules, but the judgment does not fix or quantify those costs. No damages, payment of the alleged hypothecary claim, or other monetary relief on the underlying dispute are adjudicated at this stage. Accordingly, although CRT succeeds in obtaining the right to continue its examinations, the total monetary amount of any costs, awards or damages in its favour cannot be determined from this management judgment.