Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute over a software implementation contract where Cuisine Crotone alleges non-performance and Dunin Technologie blames Crotone’s staff for project failures
• Central evidentiary conflict concerning two opposing IT expert reports (Caron for Dunin, Young for Crotone) on the causes of the software project’s difficulties
• Application of article 241 C.p.c. to determine whether the Young report should be rejected pre-trial for alleged irregularity, serious error and partiality
• Tension between the expert’s proper role (technical assistance to the court) and the experts’ de facto interpretation of contractual obligations and assessment of parties’ conduct
• Judicial preference to defer borderline admissibility and weight issues to the trial judge, while still policing blatant irregularity or bias at the preliminary stage
• Final refusal to strike the Young report, leaving questions of probative value, impartiality and expert credibility to be resolved by the judge on the merits

Factual background

Cuisine Crotone inc. and Dunin Technologie inc. entered into a contract under which Dunin agreed to sell and implement a software solution intended to manage Crotone’s customer orders. The software was meant to assist a kitchen cabinet manufacturer (Crotone) in organizing and processing order flows from its clients in an efficient, IT-supported manner. The relationship deteriorated during implementation. Crotone maintains that Dunin failed to deliver the product and performance promised under the contract and that the software did not function as required. Dunin, on the other hand, contends that the difficulties encountered stemmed from Crotone’s own failings, particularly the alleged incompetence or inadequate involvement of its employees in supplying necessary data and participating in the implementation process. As a result, Crotone seeks annulment of the contract and reimbursement of amounts it has already paid, while Dunin counters by demanding full payment of the contractual price originally agreed between the parties.

The expert evidence framework

Given the technical nature of the IT dispute, the Superior Court encouraged the parties to obtain expert assistance to help the future trial judge understand the software development and implementation issues. A common expert was initially strongly suggested, but the parties were unable to agree. Dunin first retained its own expert, who produced the Caron report in the autumn of 2025. That report was filed without objection. In response, Crotone retained its own expert, Young, whose report—largely a counter-expertise directed at Caron’s conclusions—was served in early February 2026. Dunin then brought a motion asking the Court to strike the Young report in its entirety, arguing that it contained legal opinions, untested technical assertions lacking supporting tests or documentation, and, moreover, that the expert was partial rather than objective. Crotone opposed the motion, asserting that Young was simply responding to Caron’s own assertions and that, in a complex technical dispute, the trial judge should have the benefit of both perspectives, with the weight of each report to be decided at trial.

Legal context: role and admissibility of expert reports

The Court situates the dispute within the modern Code of Civil Procedure framework adopted in 2016, which more explicitly regulates the mission and duties of experts. Article 22 C.p.c. provides that the expert’s mission is to enlighten the court in decision-making, and that this mission overrides the parties’ interests; the expert must act with objectivity, impartiality and rigour. Articles 231, 235 and 238 C.p.c. define the purpose, content, and structure of an expert report, emphasizing that the report must be sufficiently detailed and reasoned to allow the judge to understand the facts and logic supporting the conclusions, while the conclusions themselves do not bind the court. Article 241 C.p.c. specifically allows a party, before trial, to seek rejection of an expert report for irregularity, serious error or partiality, with the possibility of ordering corrections, partial redactions, or outright withdrawal, and adjusting or reducing the expert’s fees accordingly. The Court also recalls the Supreme Court’s foundational criteria for expert evidence from Mohan and White Burgess (relevance, necessity, absence of exclusionary rule, and proper qualifications), as well as the more recent Quebec jurisprudence emphasizing that pre-trial challenges to expert evidence now form part of the ordinary management of cases, particularly to avoid late adjournments, unnecessary counter-expertises and exposure of the trial judge to inadmissible or misleading technical proof.

Assessment of the Caron report

To evaluate the fairness of striking or retaining the Young report, the judge first looks closely at the scope of Caron’s work. Caron was mandated to determine whether the software met contractual expectations, identify the causes of the problems and allocate responsibility between the parties based on their contractual obligations. To do so, he interpreted the contract, including where he perceived gaps or unclear definitions, and reconstructed what the contract must have meant for an enterprise producing kitchen cabinets. He explicitly notes that the contract lacks a clear definition of requirements and that he therefore had to “interpret the contract” in light of his experience, and even define for himself the “processus de traitement de commande” that was not spelled out in the agreement or on Dunin’s website. Caron then performed a series of tests on the software and provided detailed technical comments. Beyond purely technical analysis, he scrutinized Crotone’s performance of its contractual obligations, including its provision of data and information, and he concluded that Crotone’s internal resources lacked the required IT expertise for a project of this magnitude. He further opined that Crotone’s failure to manage change requests and to supply necessary data and inputs on time rendered the delivery of an exploitable project impossible. In effect, Caron went beyond a narrow technical assessment of the software and offered opinions on the competence of Crotone’s staff, the adequacy of its internal project management, and the causes of the project’s difficulties, all against the backdrop of his own reading of the contract and the parties’ exchanges.

Assessment of the Young report and alleged defects

Young’s report, prepared for Crotone, is essentially a counter-expertise aimed at responding to Caron’s analyses and conclusions. Young likewise addresses not only the software’s operation but also the obligations of the parties under the contract and their conduct throughout implementation. He expresses views on the performance and competence of Crotone’s employees and, crucially, on Dunin’s conduct in eliciting and defining Crotone’s needs at the outset. Young concludes that Dunin failed to properly establish Crotone’s initial requirements, a failure he considers a fundamental error in the project. He analyses the contractual obligations and extensive documentary exchanges, concluding that Dunin did not provide adequate information to Crotone about the skills and qualifications required of the staff assigned to the project, nor about the time commitments those employees would need to devote. He disputes Caron’s criticisms of Crotone’s staff and project behaviour, opining that the employees were competent, that the tasks and delays cannot be fairly attributed to Crotone, and that the change requests raised in the documentation do not constitute true contractual changes in the way Caron suggests. Young also emphasizes that he found nothing in the documentation indicating that Crotone caused delays or failed to perform tasks in a timely manner, nor any written notices from Dunin formally advising Crotone of alleged shortcomings, even while Dunin did not itself respond in writing to Crotone’s complaints. Dunin’s motion characterized parts of the Young report as containing improper legal opinions, unsubstantiated technical assertions and clear partiality in favour of Crotone, requesting that the entire report be struck from the record.

Balancing irregularity, partiality and trial fairness

The Court acknowledges that many of the opinions expressed by both experts arguably encroach on the trial judge’s role to interpret the contract, evaluate the evidence, and determine legal responsibility. The judge also notes that the Caron report was filed without prior objection, and that it appears more balanced and impartial in tone and structure than the Young report. At the same time, the Court stresses that once Caron went beyond narrow technical testing and began interpreting contractual obligations, evaluating the parties’ conduct and judging their employees’ competence, he effectively opened the door to a counter-expert responding on the same terrain. In that context, barring Crotone’s expert from answering Caron’s criticisms could create imbalance and deprive the trial judge of a complete view of the technical and project-management aspects of the dispute. The Court candidly observes that Young’s report reflects an outdated, partisan conception of expert work—akin to a “mercenary” advocating a client’s cause—rather than the modern standard of independent assistance to the court. The language used, some expressions and the overall tone raise concerns about lack of restraint and apparent bias. The judge considers whether to strike or “caviarder” (redact) parts of the report that most clearly display partiality or stray into legal argument, but ultimately concludes that doing so would not meaningfully help the trial judge to resolve the underlying technical and contractual issues. The modern case-management role under article 241 C.p.c. does support early intervention where irregularities, serious errors or obvious partiality threaten to derail the proceedings, but it also requires prudence to avoid depriving the trial judge of potentially useful technical insight merely because its probative value or neutrality is contested.

Outcome and implications for the parties

In the end, the Court rejects Dunin’s motion to strike the Young report and leaves the report in the record. The judge emphasizes that Crotone will have to live with the apparent weaknesses and partiality of its own expert; at trial, the judge of first instance will be free to give the Young report little or no weight if its deficiencies in content or impartiality prove significant in light of the full evidentiary picture. Conversely, the trial judge will also assess Caron’s report, including the extent to which it rests on sound technical principles and industry practices in the software and IT implementation sector. The existence of both reports, though imperfect, is considered more conducive to a well-informed judgment than excluding Crotone’s counter-expertise and perhaps prompting a new expert report at greater cost and delay. This judgment is limited to the procedural question of admissibility of expert evidence. It does not resolve the underlying contractual dispute between Crotone and Dunin, nor does it award damages or fix liability. While Crotone is the successful party on this motion (since the request to reject its expert report is dismissed), the court explicitly reserves costs to follow the outcome of the main action and does not determine any monetary award, costs or damages at this stage; the total amount, if any, to be ordered in favour of a successful party will be determined only in the final judgment on the merits, and cannot be ascertained from this decision alone.