Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute centers on alleged breaches of non-competition, non-solicitation and confidentiality undertakings in employment contracts of former employees in commercial financing.
• A procedural contest arises over whether two separate actions, involving different former employees and different alleged competitive conduct, should be joined under article 210 C.p.c. for a single hearing.
• The court closely examines the degree of factual and legal connexity between the two files, including differences in roles, termination circumstances and alleged post-employment conduct.
• Assessment of similar restrictive covenants and confidentiality commitments is held to be inherently context-specific, turning on each employee’s hiring conditions, functions, termination and post-employment situation.
• Judicial economy, proportionality and good case management are weighed against the risk of dragging parties into proceedings that largely do not concern them.
• Ultimately, the limited overlap in evidence and the absence of real risk of contradictory judgments lead the court to refuse joinder and keep the actions separate.

Factual background and parties

Fincap Financial Group Inc. operates in the field of commercial financing and employed several individuals who later became the subject of litigation after their departure. The company commenced two separate actions, each grounded in alleged violations of restrictive covenants and confidentiality obligations signed at the start of, or during, the employment relationship.
In the first action, docket 550-17-014269-250 (the “250 file”), Fincap sues two former commercial financing brokers, Félix Hurteau and Audrey Gagnon-Bart. Their employment ended in September 2025 (for Hurteau) and November 2025 (for Gagnon-Bart), allegedly following voluntary resignations. After they left, a new company, 9503-6026 Québec inc. doing business as Riot Financial Group, came onto the scene. Fincap alleges that Riot Financial Group operates in the same competitive space as Fincap and is associated with Hurteau and Gagnon-Bart. Fincap claims these former brokers are participating in competing activities at Riot Financial Group in breach of non-competition and non-solicitation clauses, as well as a separate confidentiality undertaking.
In the second action, docket 550-17-014323-263 (the “263 file”), Fincap proceeds against another former employee, Melyssa Frenette-Bruyère, who was hired as an administrative coordinator. Her employment ended differently: she was dismissed in December 2025, rather than resigning. After her termination, she was allegedly hired by a competitor, Services Financiers Affiliés Inc. Fincap claims that by joining a competing firm, Frenette-Bruyère breached her own non-competition undertaking and also violated confidentiality obligations, including by sharing confidential information in a way that allegedly benefited Hurteau and Gagnon-Bart.

Restrictive covenants and confidentiality undertakings

The core of both actions involves restrictive covenants in employment contracts—specifically non-competition and non-solicitation clauses—as well as contractual undertakings regarding confidentiality. These clauses are typical in commercial and financial services settings, where employers seek to protect client information, business opportunities and competitive advantages after key personnel move on.
However, the court emphasizes that such clauses are not analyzed in a vacuum. Even though the wording of the restrictive and confidentiality clauses is similar across the different contracts, their validity and scope must be assessed in light of each employee’s specific context: how they were hired, what functions they performed, how their employment relationship unfolded and how it ended. The court also notes that the non-compete period differs: Hurteau and Gagnon-Bart are subject to a 12-month non-competition period, whereas Frenette-Bruyère is bound by a 6-month non-competition period. This difference in duration is significant because it can influence how a trial judge later evaluates the reasonableness and enforceability of the clauses.
The court further points out that the employees’ roles and post-employment situations are not aligned. Hurteau and Gagnon-Bart, as commercial financing brokers, are alleged to have left voluntarily to associate together in a new, directly competing entity (Riot Financial Group). By contrast, Frenette-Bruyère was an administrative coordinator who, after being dismissed, is alleged to have joined an unrelated third-party competitor (Services Financiers Affiliés Inc.) with no apparent structural link to Riot Financial Group. These differences weigh heavily against treating all three defendants as part of a single, integrated competitive scheme.

Procedural context: the request for joinder under article 210 C.p.c.

In each action, Fincap seeks two main forms of relief: injunctions (to enforce the restrictive and confidentiality obligations) and damages (for harm allegedly caused by the breaches). Before the merits could be heard, Fincap brought a procedural motion seeking the joinder of the two actions, asking that the 250 and 263 files be heard together and decided on the basis of a common evidentiary record.
The motion is grounded in article 210 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which gives the court broad discretion to order joinder of proceedings even if they do not arise from the same or related source. The provision allows the court to join proceedings between the same parties, or even between different parties, so they may be heard and decided together on common evidence, provided that no undue delay or serious prejudice results. The court’s discretion is guided by overarching procedural principles: the promotion of proportionality (article 18 C.p.c.), sound case management and orderly progress of proceedings (article 19 C.p.c.), as well as judicial economy and access to justice.
Fincap argued that, despite an imperfect factual connection, the similarity of the restrictive and confidentiality clauses created sufficient connexity to justify joinder. It claimed that the core of the proof—particularly concerning Fincap’s business, its territory, and the existence and content of the restrictive covenants and confidentiality undertakings—would be essentially the same in both actions. According to Fincap, trying the cases together would avoid duplication of evidence and procedural steps, streamline the proceedings and prevent potentially inconsistent outcomes.
The defendants vigorously opposed joinder. They maintained that any connexity between the cases was superficial and largely limited to the legal character of the clauses themselves. In their view, each case rests on its own factual narrative, including distinct hiring arrangements, job functions, termination circumstances and post-employment conduct. Because the factual matrices diverge, they argued there is no real risk of contradictory judgments: even if different conclusions were reached on similar clauses, those results would reflect different facts, not inconsistent legal reasoning. They also stressed that joining the proceedings would oblige parties to participate in steps and disputes that largely do not concern them, increasing complexity, cost and delay contrary to the very principles of proportionality and sound judicial management the Code seeks to protect.

Court’s analysis of connexity and risk of contradictory decisions

The court frames the analysis around four key criteria typically used in assessing joinder: (a) the degree of connexity between the issues; (b) the risk of contradictory decisions; (c) potential economies of resources and efficiency gains; and (d) the prejudice any party might suffer.
On the degree of connexity, the court finds that the two cases differ materially. In the 250 file, the allegations focus on Hurteau and Gagnon-Bart’s functions as commercial financing brokers, their voluntary resignations in fall 2025, and their alleged participation in a new, directly competing entity (Riot Financial Group). In the 263 file, the dispute centers on Frenette-Bruyère’s role as an administrative coordinator, her dismissal in December 2025 and her subsequent employment with another competitor, Services Financiers Affiliés Inc., which is not alleged to be linked to Riot Financial Group. Although both actions involve references to Fincap’s confidential information, including assertions that Frenette-Bruyère shared such information for the benefit of Hurteau and Gagnon-Bart, the court characterizes this as only one element among many, insufficient on its own to create a strong factual and legal connection.
The court stresses that the mere similarity of restrictive and confidentiality clauses does not automatically create the necessary connexity. Evaluation of such clauses is context-dependent: the trial judge must consider each employee’s duties, the nature of the employer’s business, the geographical and temporal scope of the clause, and the circumstances of termination. Here, those contextual factors differ significantly among the defendants, including the fact that the non-competition periods are 12 months for Hurteau and Gagnon-Bart and 6 months for Frenette-Bruyère. The court also notes that the facts do not support a unified scenario where all three defendants jointly developed a coordinated plan to compete with Fincap. Any notion of a common project appears limited to Hurteau and Gagnon-Bart; it does not extend convincingly to Frenette-Bruyère.
Turning to the risk of contradictory judgments, the court concludes that this risk is minimal. Even if similar clauses were interpreted differently across the two files, those differences would be grounded in distinct factual backgrounds rather than inconsistent application of legal principles. The court remarks that one set of clauses could be found inapplicable or not breached in one file while being enforced in the other without creating true contradiction, because each judgment would be anchored in its own evidence.

Judicial economy, proportionality and prejudice

On judicial economy and efficiency, the court acknowledges that some portions of the evidence—particularly regarding Fincap’s business model, service territory, and the existence and wording of the restrictive and confidentiality provisions—would overlap across both cases. However, the court finds that this common evidence is limited. The bulk of the proof will be individualized: hiring contexts, job descriptions, lengths and terms of non-compete obligations, the specific alleged breaches, the causal link to any harm, and the quantum and basis of damages or contractual penalties. These elements would need to be developed separately in each file even if they were joined.
Because the common elements do not dominate the litigation, the court sees no substantial savings in time or resources from joinder. Instead, it foresees that trying to manage two different factual scenarios and multiple parties in a single proceeding would introduce additional complexity, risk procedural incidents, and potentially prolong the preparation and hearing. These effects would undermine, rather than promote, the objectives of proportionality and efficient case management.
On prejudice, the court recognizes that Fincap may face some duplication of effort by having to present similar evidence twice in separate actions. Yet this inconvenience is considered significantly less serious than the potential prejudice to defendants if the cases were joined. If joinder were ordered, each defendant could be drawn into procedural steps, case management conferences, interlocutory motions, examinations and trial segments that largely concern other parties and issues. This would divert time and resources and expand legal exposure beyond what is strictly necessary to resolve each party’s own dispute. In the court’s view, such an outcome would conflict with the principles of proportionality and the fair, efficient administration of justice.

Outcome and implications

Having weighed the four criteria and the overarching procedural principles, the court exercises its discretion under article 210 C.p.c. to reject Fincap’s motion. It holds that the two actions should proceed separately because the factual and legal connexity is limited, the risk of contradictory judgments is low, the potential gains in efficiency are modest at best, and the risk of prejudice to defendants is real and significant.
The court therefore dismisses the request for joinder and invites the parties in each file to continue with ordinary case management steps, including working to agree on a protocol of the instance (case protocol). If they cannot agree, they may seek directions through a formal case management notice, but at the time of judgment no such notice is before the court. The judgment concludes by formally rejecting the motion for joinder (“REJETTE la demande en jonction d’instance”), with court costs (“frais de justice”) to be determined at a later stage.
In this decision, the successful parties are the defendants—Félix Hurteau, Audrey Gagnon-Bart, Melyssa Frenette-Bruyère and the corporate defendants Riot Financial Group and Services Financiers Affiliés Inc.—who succeed in keeping the two proceedings separate. No damages or specific monetary amounts are awarded in their favor at this procedural stage, and the decision expressly leaves the question of costs and any potential monetary awards for future determination, so the total amount ordered in favor of the successful parties cannot yet be determined.