Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope of permissible amendments to an originating application under articles 206 and 207 C.p.c., including adding a civil liability claim and reorganizing conclusions in an ongoing disguised expropriation dispute.
• Relationship between the original regulatory framework (PMAD 2012, Règlement 170, Règlements de 2016, RCI) and the later PMAD 2025, and whether contesting the latter remains part of the same factual and legal continuum.
• Alleged disguised expropriation and civil fault arising from metropolitan and municipal planning instruments that allegedly render the Lots unusable in practice.
• Evaluation of whether the proposed amendments amount to an entirely new and unrelated claim or merely update the original claim with new facts and legal bases.
• Assessment of whether the amendments and related evidence (including new urban planning expertise and interrogatories) unduly delay the 11-year-old proceedings.
• Limits of objections at examinations on discovery, including when questions about the adoption and content of PMAD 2025 are sufficiently relevant to require the CMM’s representative to answer.

Facts of the case
Le Groupe Maison Candiac inc. et Gestion L.A.H.L. inc. are real estate developers who own several immovable properties (the “Lots”) in La Prairie, Quebec, all located in a protected agricultural zone governed by the Loi sur la protection du territoire et des activités agricoles (LPTAA). The Lots are entirely within the territory of Ville de La Prairie and under the regional jurisdiction of the Municipalité régionale de comté (MRC) de Roussillon, while the Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal (CMM) holds broader metropolitan planning powers. Over time, the CMM, the MRC and the City adopted a series of planning instruments and regulations: the PMAD 2012 (metropolitan plan), MRC Règlement 170 revising the regional Schéma d’aménagement, the City’s Règlements de 2016 to ensure concordance, and the CMM’s Règlement de contrôle intérimaire (RCI) on natural environments, later modified by Règlement 2025-125, and then the PMAD 2025 intended to replace PMAD 2012. According to the plaintiffs (the “Demanderesses”), the combined effect of these measures is to prevent any realistic use or development of the Lots, effectively sterilizing the land.
The original proceeding was launched in August 2015, when the Demanderesses sought to have Règlement 170 and the revised Schéma declared inopposable, null and inoperable as regards the Lots, or alternatively to have them recognized as causing a disguised expropriation. In February 2016, Ville de La Prairie was added as a defendant and the plaintiffs extended their challenge to the City’s Règlements de 2016. In March 2022, a third party, Oasis Laprairie Inc., agreed to purchase the Lots for a lakeside vacation-residential project and stepped into the proceeding as plaintiff in a new originating application. Oasis added the CMM as a defendant and sought to have the 2022 RCI declared inopposable, null and inoperable as to the Lots, and to rely on the RCI and the 2016 municipal bylaws as further grounds of disguised expropriation.
Oasis pursued planning steps and negotiations with public authorities between June 2022 and February 2024, while the court proceedings were periodically suspended and deadlines extended by consent. In March 2024, facing low odds of making its project feasible without a court ruling, Oasis decided to walk away from the transaction and not complete the acquisition of the Lots. A process of retrocession and contractual unwinding of the sale followed, under the relevant provisions of the Civil Code of Québec. By October 2024, the retrocession and voluntary surrender were formalized, returning control of the Lots to the original Demanderesses, who then resumed conduct of the litigation.

Procedural history and regulatory developments
After the retrocession, the Demanderesses sought to adapt their claim to new regulatory developments. On 20 November 2025, they filed a modified originating application that: (1) added allegations attacking the newly adopted PMAD 2025; (2) introduced new conclusions claiming damages against the public bodies (civil liability) in addition to the existing expropriation and nullity remedies; and (3) inverted the hierarchy of remedies to put disguised expropriation and damages at the forefront, with declarations of nullity and inopposability sought only in the alternative. Shortly thereafter, on 1 December 2025, the defendants filed formal objections to this new amendment. They argued that the proposed claims, especially those tied to the PMAD 2025 and to damages based on civil fault, amounted to an entirely new action and would unduly delay the already lengthy proceedings. On 15 December 2025, the Demanderesses filed the formal motion now before the Court, seeking authorization to amend their originating application in line with the November 2025 draft. At the same time, they further refined their pleading by withdrawing certain civil liability conclusions against the City and the MRC, while maintaining their claims in disguised expropriation, nullity and related relief.
Parallel to the amendment issue, there was a discovery dispute. The plaintiffs had begun the examination of the CMM’s representative, Mr. Nicholas Milot, in July 2025, but the session had to be suspended before completion. With PMAD 2025 now adopted, the plaintiffs announced their intention to resume the examination (through the new CMM representative, Ms. Laurence Pelletier) and question her about the adoption process and content of the PMAD 2025. Anticipating this, the CMM signalled it would object to all questions concerning PMAD 2025 as irrelevant, abusive or otherwise improper, and sought to have the examination effectively cut off in advance. This dispute was brought before the Court via an “Avis de gestion d’instance” dated 20 November 2025, asking the Court to rule on the CMM’s anticipated objections under article 228 C.p.c. and, in substance, to bring the examination to an end under article 230 C.p.c.

The motions before the court
Two main procedural issues were before the Superior Court in this judgment. First, the Court had to decide whether to authorize the Demanderesses’ amended originating application, which would reorganize remedies, introduce a civil liability theory tied to the adoption and implementation of the planning instruments, and explicitly contest the PMAD 2025. Under articles 206 and 207 C.p.c., the Court had to assess: (1) whether these changes created an “entirely new” claim without connection to the original one; and (2) whether they would unduly delay the conduct of the instance. Second, the Court had to rule on the CMM’s anticipated objections to further questions at the examination of its representative. This included deciding whether questions on PMAD 2025 were so clearly irrelevant, abusive or tantamount to a fishing expedition that the CMM should be allowed, in advance, to refuse to answer them and that the examination should effectively be terminated as abusive or useless under article 230 C.p.c.

Parties’ positions on the amended claim
The City of La Prairie and the CMM argued that the proposed amendment transformed the case into a fundamentally different action, emphasizing a new civil liability theory and targeting the PMAD 2025 as a separate and autonomous legislative instrument. They contended that the plaintiffs were attempting to sidestep recent case law restricting disguised expropriation claims based solely on high-level planning documents, as well as to avoid the municipal right of withdrawal under the planning legislation. They further submitted that PMAD 2025 launched a fresh “cascade” of downstream instruments (new Schéma, then new municipal bylaws), distinct from the earlier PMAD 2012 cascade, so that success against one set of instruments would not necessarily imply success against the other. On delay, the defendants stressed that the matter was already in its 11th year and claimed that addressing PMAD 2025 and a fault-based civil liability claim would require new expert evidence and additional procedural steps, thereby prolonging the litigation unfairly.
The Demanderesses countered that the amendments remained within the same factual and legal matrix: the progressive entrenchment of planning and environmental restrictions that, taken together, allegedly deprived the Lots of viable use. They argued that re-prioritizing conclusions (placing disguised expropriation and damages first, nullity second) is recognized as a choice of remedy and does not change the nature of the dispute. They also maintained that adding a civil liability basis is allowed where it flows from the same set of facts and common proof, particularly in disguised expropriation contexts where the same regulatory conduct may be characterized both as a de facto taking and as a fault. As for PMAD 2025, they characterized it as a continuation and consolidation of the existing regulatory framework, especially in light of the Règlement 2025-125 that expressly removed certain territories from the RCI because they were now handled under PMAD 2025. In their view, this showed a direct and tight relationship between the new PMAD and the earlier contested scheme. Finally, they argued that any delay was not abusive and that they were entitled to take into account genuinely new facts, such as the 2025 plan’s adoption and entry into force.

Parties’ positions on the anticipated objections
On the examination dispute, the defendants, especially the CMM, argued that plaintiffs had already extensively questioned them over many years about the identification of natural environments, the classification of the Lots and the application of the RCI and related instruments. Since, in their view, PMAD 2025 merely re-used the same identification of “milieux naturels d’intérêt métropolitain” as the 2022 RCI, they claimed it was only a new “vehicle” with no substantive change. Consequently, any further questioning on PMAD 2025 would either be purely legal or hypothetical, not factual, and would inevitably draw objections. They asked the Court to characterize the planned examination as useless or abusive and to bring it to an end under article 230 C.p.c.
The Demanderesses responded that article 228 C.p.c. generally requires witnesses to answer questions, with objections on relevance noted for later decision by the trial judge, and that only in exceptional cases may a witness decline to answer in advance. They insisted that the content, adoption context, and underlying analyses for PMAD 2025 were all relevant to their claims in disguised expropriation, nullity (including ultra vires arguments), and civil fault. They emphasized that they were not seeking an unlimited fishing expedition but rather targeted questions on the process and criteria by which the CMM decided to incorporate and perpetuate the constraints previously embodied in the RCI within the new PMAD 2025.

Court’s legal analysis
On amendments to pleadings, the Court recalled that articles 206 and 207 C.p.c. are to be interpreted liberally, with the modification of an act of procedure being the rule rather than the exception. A modification may be refused only if it creates a wholly new and unrelated cause of action, or if it unduly delays the proceedings for the sake of delay. The Court noted that re-ordering the hierarchy of remedies (putting a claim in disguised expropriation and damages ahead of nullity and inopposability) is well recognized as a procedural choice for plaintiffs, particularly in expropriation matters, and does not by itself alter the essential nature of the litigation. The Court also referred to prior cases where, in disguised expropriation disputes, plaintiffs were allowed to add civil fault-based claims for damages so long as they arose from the same factual narrative and largely common evidence. Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the plaintiffs’ new civil liability allegations were simply another legal characterization of the same underlying conduct (the adoption and maintenance of restrictive planning instruments affecting the Lots), and therefore not a separate and unrelated claim.
Regarding PMAD 2025, the Court acknowledged that it is, in formal terms, a distinct and autonomous legal instrument and that its adoption triggers a fresh sequence of downstream planning obligations for the MRC and municipalities. However, the decisive criterion under article 206 C.p.c. is not formal autonomy but whether the new allegations bear a real relationship to the original claim. On the record, the plaintiffs alleged that PMAD 2025 continued and entrenched the same regulatory treatment of the Lots, and that this was reinforced by Règlement 2025-125, which explicitly removed certain “milieux terrestres d’intérêt métropolitain” from the RCI because they would henceforth be governed by PMAD 2025. The Court found that this linkage was not seriously contested: the City and CMM themselves had described PMAD 2025 as a “simple change of vehicle” that carried forward the identification of natural environments made in the RCI. The Court therefore held that the amendments challenging PMAD 2025 and alleging fault in its adoption remained within the same factual and legal continuum as the original challenge and did not amount to an entirely new, unrelated claim.
On alleged undue delay, the Court recognized that the case had been pending for some 11 years but emphasized that PMAD 2025 had only been adopted in June 2025 and entered into force in December 2025. These were genuinely new facts arising after many of the earlier procedural steps. The Court stressed that it was for the defendants to demonstrate that the purpose of the amendments was merely to prolong the case and that the resulting delay would be undue; in the Court’s view, this had not been demonstrated. While additional expert work and evidence might be required, this flowed naturally from the emergence of a new, significant metropolitan planning instrument and from the plaintiffs’ legitimate wish to address it within the same litigation rather than through fragmented, parallel proceedings.

Court’s approach to the anticipated objections
Turning to the discovery issues, the Court reviewed article 228 C.p.c., which generally requires witnesses to answer questions even where relevance is contested, with the objection recorded and addressed later by the trial judge. Only in exceptional circumstances—where a question is clearly foreign to the dispute and is onerous, dilatory or vexatious—may a witness refuse to answer in advance. The Court also cited article 230 C.p.c., which allows it to terminate an examination only when it has become abusive or useless. It reiterated that article 228 C.p.c. is purely procedural and does not create new substantive privileges or grounds of objection; the reference to an “important legitimate interest” does not establish a new immunity from disclosure.
In this context, the Court noted that it was being asked to rule on “objections anticipées,” before any concrete question had been asked about PMAD 2025. In such a posture, it was difficult for the Court to be satisfied that every possible question would be “truly foreign” to the dispute or that requiring answers would necessarily be onerous, dilatory or abusive. By contrast, the plaintiffs had clearly indicated that they intended to ask questions about the content and adoption process of PMAD 2025 in order to support their claims of disguised expropriation, ultra vires regulation and civil fault. The Court found that this proposed line of questioning was facially relevant and targeted, not an impermissible fishing expedition. The possibility that the CMM’s representative might ultimately provide little or no genuinely new factual information did not justify blocking all questions in advance. Whether the testimony would ultimately prove probative was an issue for the trial judge assessing the evidence as a whole.

Outcome and implications
The Superior Court granted the Demanderesses’ motion to amend their originating application. They are authorized to file an amended proceeding framed primarily as a claim in disguised expropriation and damages, with subsidiary conclusions for declaratory relief, nullity, inoperability and inopposability of the contested regulatory framework, including the PMAD 2025. The Court also rejected the CMM’s anticipated objections concerning questions on PMAD 2025 and ordered that the CMM, through its representative, answer the plaintiffs’ questions about that plan for up to an hour and a half on a scheduled date. Finally, the parties were ordered to file a new litigation protocol to reflect the updated issues and remaining procedural steps. In this interlocutory judgment, the successful parties are the Demanderesses, Le Groupe Maison Candiac inc. and Gestion L.A.H.L. inc., who obtain both leave to amend and an order compelling further examination of the CMM, with the judgment rendered “avec frais” (with costs). However, the decision does not fix any specific monetary amount for those costs and does not award any quantified damages; the total monetary award in favour of the successful parties cannot be determined from this judgment alone.