Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope of judicial review over a non-profit association’s decision to expel a long-standing member from a controlled harvesting zone (ZEC) it manages under governmental delegation
• Context-sensitive application of procedural fairness and impartiality standards to a volunteer board, including participation limits for conflicted administrators and adequacy of notice of allegations
• Reasonableness of the Association’s decision to impose the ultimate sanction of expulsion based on cumulative misconduct, in light of the Vavilov framework for “issues possibles acceptables”
• Weight given to evidence of threats, intimidation, vandalism, unauthorized land alterations, and possession of prohibited weapons versus the member’s general denials and partial admissions
• Treatment of earlier misconduct discovered only after an initial disciplinary decision, and whether such conduct can legitimately be relied on in a subsequent expulsion decision
• Consequences of an unsuccessful judicial review for a parallel claim in damages, including the award of costs in favour of the Association and its directors, with no quantified monetary award specified

Background and parties

This case arises from a dispute within a recreational hunting and fishing community over membership rights in a controlled harvesting zone (ZEC) in Québec. The Association de chasse et pêche Le Sueur inc. is a non-profit corporation without share capital, constituted under Part III of the Loi sur les compagnies. It operates the Zec Lesueur pursuant to a “Protocole d’entente concernant la gestion de la Zone d’exploitation contrôlée de chasse et de pêche désignée sous le nom de Zec Lesueur” entered into with the provincial Ministry responsible for environment, wildlife and parks. Under this protocol, the Association is mandated to plan, organize, direct and control exploitation, conservation, protection and management of wildlife, and incidentally recreational activities, within the ZEC, in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policies and directives. It also enforces its own by-laws and regulations on all persons engaging in recreational activities on the territory. Jean-Pierre Robert was both a long-standing user of the ZEC and, from 2022 to 2024, a member of the Association’s board. The defendants, Michel Robidoux and Michel Bohémier, were board members at the relevant time, while the Association itself was impleaded as mise en cause.

From internal conflict to removal as administrator

In June 2023, tensions within the board escalated, particularly between Mr. Robert and Mr. Robidoux. The conflict became severe enough that some administrators resigned and were replaced. New administrators reported serious concerns about threats allegedly made by Mr. Robert against two of them. Following an internal inquiry conducted under the presidency of Mr. Robidoux, the board decided on 16 February 2024 to remove Mr. Robert from his position as administrator, while allowing him to remain a member of the Association. In a letter dated that day, signed by Mr. Robidoux as board president, the Association invoked breaches of the ZEC management protocol—specifically articles 1.2, 1.3, 4.8 and 4.16—as well as a breach of point 9 of its code of ethics. The letter also contained a clear warning: any future threat against a member or the ZEC’s management would lead to immediate expulsion from the camping facilities. This earlier decision and warning later became an important part of the context for the more severe sanction of expulsion.

Alleged misconduct after removal from the board

After his removal as administrator, Mr. Robert remained active at the Zec Lesueur. In May and June 2024, several incidents were reported and documented by staff, neighbouring landowners and a fellow member-administrator. First, on 10 May 2024, an altercation arose at the neighbouring Pourvoirie Domaine Vanier. Mr. Robert, accompanied by two other individuals, requested permission from employee Claudie Grenier to cross the outfitter’s land to reach a hunting spot. Referring to a third party who he claimed had authorized his passage, he insisted aggressively on crossing despite Ms. Grenier’s refusal and, when she turned to answer a phone call and told him to wait, he and his companions proceeded onto the Domaine Vanier property on their ATVs. The outfitter’s ownership later sent a formal letter to the Association complaining about this conduct and asking that Mr. Robert no longer cross their territory. Second, on 27 May 2024, Association employee Stéphanie Boismenu reported that Mr. Robert had left insulting language on his registration card and had vandalized a sign at the entrance post. His registration form bore the message “PENSER DU JOUR / FERME TA YEULE” reproduced as written, while a ZEC sign had been defaced with the words “PAS DE SERVICE / VOTER ROBIDOUX,” again transcribed exactly.

Land-use irregularities and safety concerns

At a 3 June 2024 board meeting, administrator Marie-Lucie Gravel, who had hunted with Mr. Robert’s family for over 20 years and shared a campsite with him on the ZEC, informed the board of land-use irregularities and safety issues. She stated that Mr. Robert had moved boundary markers to enlarge the area of his campsite and had cut trees along the shoreline buffer zone without authorization. She further indicated that, for several years, he regularly carried a prohibited firearm on his ATV within the ZEC. On 11 June 2024, Ms. Gravel’s partner delivered two prohibited firearms belonging to Mr. Robert to the Sûreté du Québec. Ms. Gravel also conveyed that Mr. Robert’s recurrent expressions of dissatisfaction with other members caused her to fear for the safety of members and administrators. In response, the board tasked Mr. Bohémier with photographing the cut trees and repositioned boundary markers to document these alleged breaches of the Association’s rules and the applicable management and conservation framework.

Pre-expulsion notice and alleged threats to burn the ZEC

On 18 June 2024, the board notified Mr. Robert of its intention to expel him as a member and advised him that a special board meeting would be held to hear his position. The notice gave him more than two weeks to prepare and specified the grounds: repeated threats against members’ property and physical integrity compromising safety within the ZEC, and refusal to amend his conduct and comply with the general regulations despite several warnings. Following this, on 19 June 2024, Mr. Robert phoned Ms. Gravel to discuss both the expulsion notice and the fact that her partner had surrendered his prohibited guns to the police. According to her sworn statement, Mr. Robert said twice that, if he had to leave, there would be fires on the ZEC, and remarked that given his age he would get only a “little slap on the wrist” and at worst his partner would bring him oranges in jail. On 22 June 2024, he went to Ms. Gravel’s campsite while she and her partner were in the veranda and revisited the expulsion notice, admitting he had cut trees but saying he had not sought compensation from the ZEC because he had brought his own equipment and trailer, and he had kept the logs as compensation. Still upset about the notice, he allegedly commented, as he left, that he had “a good lighter.” Ms. Gravel reported these remarks to the board as implied threats of arson.

Further specification of charges and the expulsion decision

On 2 July 2024, Mr. Robert’s counsel asked the board for more detailed reasons for the contemplated expulsion. The board responded on 4 July 2024 with a letter itemizing the allegations. Under the heading of threats, it listed threats made at an administrator’s premises, intimidation of the Domaine Vanier employee leading to an official complaint, and threats toward member Cédric Carré, documented by a complaint to the ZEC. Under the heading of refusal to amend conduct, it cited Mr. Robert’s knowledge of the regulations (which he had formally acknowledged), graffiti on the ZEC’s property, cutting healthy trees along the high-water line of his campsite, and moving boundary markers to enlarge his site. Later that same day, the board convened the special meeting. Presided over by administrator Paul Hughes, who acted as chair, the board confirmed to Mr. Robert and his counsel that only conduct occurring after the 16 February 2024 decision removing him from the board would be considered. Mr. Robert and his lawyer were heard for about 20 minutes, posed questions and received answers from the board. Mr. Hughes clarified that all facts the board would consider arose after the February 2024 decision. Before the board’s deliberations, Mr. Robidoux and Ms. Gravel withdrew from the meeting; they had attended only as observers due to their close involvement and potential conflicts of interest. On 9 July 2024, the board notified Mr. Robert of its decision by sending him the text of a resolution adopted on 4 July 2024. The resolution set out five grounds: graffiti on a ZEC sign between 20 and 26 May 2024; an odious message on his registration card during that same stay; failure to respect regulations he had signed, specifically cutting healthy trees in the high-water line and moving his campsite boundaries; aggressive conduct toward the Domaine Vanier employee on 10 May 2024; and other reprehensible acts such as vandalism and threats during his visits to the ZEC. The resolution concluded by excluding and expelling him from the Zec Lesueur territory, with unanimity of the voting board members.

Judicial review application and issues raised

Mr. Robert challenged the expulsion decision through a judicial review application (pourvoi en contrôle judiciaire) under articles 34 and 529 of the Code de procédure civile. He alleged both a breach of procedural fairness and that the decision on the merits was unreasonable. He framed four main arguments: first, that he denied certain allegations; second, that some of the complaints were vague and imprecise; third, that some of the events relied on occurred before the 16 February 2024 decision, contrary to the board’s assurance; and fourth, in the alternative, that the board should have applied a lesser sanction by using a graduated system of penalties, rather than immediate, permanent expulsion. The Superior Court, applying well-established administrative law principles, noted that the parties agreed the standard of correctness governed procedural fairness issues, while reasonableness governed the substance of the decision. Drawing on authorities such as Baker and Vavilov, the judge emphasized that procedural fairness obligations are context-dependent, and that lower intensity is generally expected for volunteer boards of non-profit organizations making decisions about access to recreational activities, as compared to courts or formal tribunals. For the merits of the decision, the judge relied explicitly on the Vavilov framework, asking whether the expulsion fell within one of the “possible acceptable outcomes” justifiable in light of the facts and the law, and whether the reasons were coherent, intelligible and responsive to the statutory and factual constraints.

Assessment of procedural fairness and impartiality

On the fairness side, the court addressed two core complaints. The first concerned impartiality and the presence of Mr. Robidoux and Ms. Gravel at the 4 July 2024 board session. The judge accepted that impartiality expectations for a small recreational association’s board are attenuated, but nevertheless found the Association took appropriate measures: the two individuals who had personal conflicts or shared a campsite with Mr. Robert did not participate in deliberations or in the vote and attended only as observers. There was no evidence in the record of them attempting to influence the other board members during the session. In these circumstances, the court found no breach of the applicable impartiality standard. The second complaint concerned the board’s assurance that only post–16 February 2024 events would be considered, even though tree-cutting and boundary-shifting had occurred earlier. The judge held that while the physical acts pre-dated February 2024, the board only learned of them after that date, when Ms. Gravel disclosed them. Once informed, it was reasonable for the board to include them in the letter itemizing allegations prior to the expulsion hearing. The court rejected Mr. Robert’s implicit theory that conduct escapes scrutiny if it happened before a prior disciplinary decision and was only discovered later, likening it to an untenable form of de facto prescription. In any event, the judge observed that nothing in the record suggested that these two earlier acts were decisive in the board’s deliberations; the other, more recent incidents (altercation with Ms. Grenier, graffiti and insulting messages, and threatening remarks) were serious enough on their own to justify serious discipline. Overall, the court concluded that Mr. Robert had clear notice of the accusations, a meaningful opportunity to be heard with counsel, and that the board’s composition and procedure met the context-sensitive requirements of procedural fairness and natural justice.

Reasonableness of the expulsion decision

Turning to the merits, the court found the board’s decision to expel Mr. Robert as a member was not unreasonable. It stressed that its role was not to re-try the dispute or decide what it would have done, but to determine whether the decision fell within a range of acceptable, defensible outcomes based on the evidence and governing rules. The resolution cited five grounds: the altercation with Ms. Grenier; vandalism of the sign and the abusive message on the registration slip; threatening behaviour; unauthorized tree cutting; and moving campsite boundaries. The judge regarded these as serious infractions—individually and cumulatively—particularly given the Association’s responsibility to ensure safety, environmental protection and orderly use of the ZEC. In reviewing Mr. Robert’s own sworn statement, the court noted the persistence of his personal conflict with Mr. Robidoux, exemplified by his disparaging reference to him as “King Robidoux,” which the judge saw as symptomatic of an underlying dismissive attitude that coloured his interactions with others. Mr. Robert categorically denied most of the allegations but admitted cutting trees (which he attempted to justify on safety grounds and by arguing it occurred before 16 February 2024) and admitted crossing onto Domaine Vanier land despite Ms. Grenier’s refusal, justifying himself by the view of a third-party official that he could not be prevented from passing. According to his own account, however, that official had suggested he ask the outfitter for permission first—and Ms. Grenier had in fact refused. The court found Mr. Robert’s explanation that he found the refusal “shocking” unconvincing, and considered his reaction to a straightforward exercise of property rights as another indication of a problematic attitude toward others’ rights and property. As for his blanket denial of Ms. Gravel’s specific and serious allegations, the judge commented that such a generalized denial was not persuasive when set against detailed, sworn accusations. The board appeared to have drawn the same conclusion. The court also found his safety-based justification for tree-cutting thin and lacking necessary factual nuance, particularly given that such cutting engaged regulatory and environmental concerns central to the Association’s mandate. A supporting statement from another member and former administrator, Mr. Réal Quirouet, was likewise given little weight, as it mostly attempted to explain or criticize the interpersonal conflict between Mr. Robert and Mr. Robidoux, and itself degenerated into negative commentary about Mr. Robidoux. On the sanction, the court accepted the Association’s argument that a form of graduated discipline had, in fact, been applied: Mr. Robert was first removed as administrator, with an explicit warning that any further threats would result in immediate expulsion, yet his troubling conduct continued. While a temporary suspension might have been another possible sanction, the court held it was for the board—acting reasonably—to decide the appropriate penalty, and it was rational for it to give substantial weight to safety and order on the ZEC. Accordingly, the sanction of permanent expulsion was within the range of reasonable outcomes.

Policy instruments, regulations and clauses at issue

Although the decision is not an insurance or commercial policy case, it deals extensively with the contractual and regulatory framework governing the ZEC. The Association’s powers and responsibilities derive from the Loi sur les compagnies (Part III), the Loi sur la conservation et la mise en valeur de la faune (including section 106 regarding controlled harvesting zones), and the Protocol of Understanding with the Ministry regarding Zec Lesueur. The 16 February 2024 letter that first removed Mr. Robert as an administrator explicitly cited multiple provisions of this protocol—articles 1.2, 1.3, 4.8 and 4.16—as well as point 9 of the Association’s code of ethics, as being breached. While the judgment does not quote the text of those specific clauses, their invocation, together with references to unauthorized tree cutting, shoreline protection, and displaced campsite boundaries, indicates they concern conservation obligations, respect for the physical integrity of the territory and compliance with the Association’s rules and ethical standards. In essence, the board framed Mr. Robert’s conduct as incompatible with the policy framework under which it must manage the ZEC, and the court accepted that this framework formed a legitimate basis for discipline, particularly in light of the Association’s duty to protect both people and the environment on the territory it administers.

Outcome, successful parties and financial consequences

In the dispositive portion of the judgment, the Superior Court rejects Mr. Robert’s application for judicial review. The expulsion decision of 4 July 2024 stands. As a result, there is no basis to revisit the internal decision of the Association or to reinstate Mr. Robert’s membership in the Zec Lesueur. The court also notes that Mr. Robert’s application included a claim for damages, but this head of claim was explicitly framed to be addressed only if the expulsion decision were quashed. Given that the judicial review was dismissed, the damages aspect became moot and was not adjudicated. The court instead ordered that the proceeding be dismissed “with costs” (“avec frais”), meaning Mr. Robert was condemned to pay legal costs in favour of the successful parties—the defendants, Mr. Robidoux and Mr. Bohémier, and the Association de chasse et pêche Le Sueur inc. as mise en cause. The judgment does not, however, specify any exact dollar figure for these costs, nor does it quantify any damages, so the total monetary amount ultimately payable in favour of the successful parties cannot be determined from this decision alone.