When Does Amending an Already Filed Application Contravene the Interests of Justice?
Richard v. Richard[1], 2025 QCCS 1676, concerned an Applicant’s amendment of an already existing and filed application. The Deceased, Rolland Richard (the “Deceased”) passed away on September 11, 2020, and was survived by his children, Luc Richard (“Richard” or the “Applicant”), Daniel Richard (“Daniel”) and Michel Richard (“Michel”) (collectively the “Defendants”).
Daniel was assigned as the liquidator of the Deceased’s Estate (the “Estate”). The Applicant commenced an application alleging that Daniel was not adequately fulfilling his tasks as the liquidator of the Estate, on the basis that he was abusing his power and causing delays. The Applicant requested that the court replace Daniel with an expert liquidator.
On November 13, 2024, the Applicant filed an amended application requesting the court to order the Defendants to collectively pay an additional $94,661 to the Estate (the “Amended Application”).
The Applicant cited Article 206 of Quebec’s Code of Civil Procedure, which allows a party to amend or withdraw a pleading without court approval before judgment, as long as it aligns with the principles of justice and does not result in undue delay.[2]
Issues
The Defendants opposed the Applicant’s amendments stating that they were not in the interests of justice on the following grounds:
- Aimed to revive rights which were barred by the limitation period;
- Aimed to include a new cause of action different to that found in the original Application;[3]
Analysis
The Limitation Period
The Defendants argued that the information in the Amended Application was discovered in August of 2021. Since the initial application was filed in November of 2024, the Defendants claimed that the statute of limitations had expired, as more than three years had passed since the claim’s discovery. On this basis, the Defendants asserted that permitting such amendments would be contrary to the interests of justice.
The Court stated that the plaintiffs did not prove with certainty that the claim had been discovered in August of 2021.
The Court further noted that the Court of Appeal has consistently interpreted Article 206 liberally, often permitting amendments prior to judgements. The Court stated:
[ 50 ] In this case and at this stage of the proceedings, it would not be rational and effective to refuse the amendments, because that would force the applicant to introduce a new appeal, which would be contrary to the interests of the heirs and liquidators of the estate, and of the good administration and the rigorous and orderly use of the judicial system.[4]
The Court additionally asserted that when assessing whether an Amended Application is time barred, careful consideration must be given to not “venture into [the] merits” of the newly added order, request or evidence.[5] The court stated that such analysis should be saved for trial.
New Cause of Action
The Defendants asserted that the Amended Applicant attempted to introduce a new cause of action that was not connected to the initial application’s cause of action.
The court stated that the Applicant’s amendments arose from the same factual basis already existing in the initial proceeding regarding the liquidation of the Deceased’s Estate. [6] The court went on to state that the amendments would have been refused if the “new allegations were clear and obvious and appears on the face of the file”.[7] The Court stated the following:
[ 55 ] In Khader v. SNC-Lavalin Inc. , the Court of Appeal taught that an amendment violates the rule prohibiting entirely new claims, unrelated to the initial claim, when by the amendment, the party reinvents its theory of the case repeatedly or even at the last minute, because the opposing party has the right to know where it stands, that is, to know in good time what it is accused of, so as to be able to adequately defend itself, in fact as well as in law.[8]
The Court asserted that although the Amended Application arrives at new conclusions, they originate from the same “common factual framework”[9].
For these reasons, the Court permitted the Amended Application to proceed, concluding that the amendments to the initial application did not contravene the interest of justice.
—
[1] Richard v. Richard, 2025 QCCS 1676
[2] Code civil du Québec, RLRQ c CCQ-1991at Article 206
[3] Ibid at para 27.
[4] Ibid at para 50.
[5] Ibid at para 45.
[6] Ibid at para 40.
[7] Ibid at para 44.
[8] Ibid at para 55.
[9] Ibid at para 66.
Menu
Written by: Gabriella Banhara
Posted on: July 2, 2025
Categories: Commentary, WEL Newsletter
Richard v. Richard[1], 2025 QCCS 1676, concerned an Applicant’s amendment of an already existing and filed application. The Deceased, Rolland Richard (the “Deceased”) passed away on September 11, 2020, and was survived by his children, Luc Richard (“Richard” or the “Applicant”), Daniel Richard (“Daniel”) and Michel Richard (“Michel”) (collectively the “Defendants”).
Daniel was assigned as the liquidator of the Deceased’s Estate (the “Estate”). The Applicant commenced an application alleging that Daniel was not adequately fulfilling his tasks as the liquidator of the Estate, on the basis that he was abusing his power and causing delays. The Applicant requested that the court replace Daniel with an expert liquidator.
On November 13, 2024, the Applicant filed an amended application requesting the court to order the Defendants to collectively pay an additional $94,661 to the Estate (the “Amended Application”).
The Applicant cited Article 206 of Quebec’s Code of Civil Procedure, which allows a party to amend or withdraw a pleading without court approval before judgment, as long as it aligns with the principles of justice and does not result in undue delay.[2]
Issues
The Defendants opposed the Applicant’s amendments stating that they were not in the interests of justice on the following grounds:
Analysis
The Limitation Period
The Defendants argued that the information in the Amended Application was discovered in August of 2021. Since the initial application was filed in November of 2024, the Defendants claimed that the statute of limitations had expired, as more than three years had passed since the claim’s discovery. On this basis, the Defendants asserted that permitting such amendments would be contrary to the interests of justice.
The Court stated that the plaintiffs did not prove with certainty that the claim had been discovered in August of 2021.
The Court further noted that the Court of Appeal has consistently interpreted Article 206 liberally, often permitting amendments prior to judgements. The Court stated:
[ 50 ] In this case and at this stage of the proceedings, it would not be rational and effective to refuse the amendments, because that would force the applicant to introduce a new appeal, which would be contrary to the interests of the heirs and liquidators of the estate, and of the good administration and the rigorous and orderly use of the judicial system.[4]
The Court additionally asserted that when assessing whether an Amended Application is time barred, careful consideration must be given to not “venture into [the] merits” of the newly added order, request or evidence.[5] The court stated that such analysis should be saved for trial.
New Cause of Action
The Defendants asserted that the Amended Applicant attempted to introduce a new cause of action that was not connected to the initial application’s cause of action.
The court stated that the Applicant’s amendments arose from the same factual basis already existing in the initial proceeding regarding the liquidation of the Deceased’s Estate. [6] The court went on to state that the amendments would have been refused if the “new allegations were clear and obvious and appears on the face of the file”.[7] The Court stated the following:
[ 55 ] In Khader v. SNC-Lavalin Inc. , the Court of Appeal taught that an amendment violates the rule prohibiting entirely new claims, unrelated to the initial claim, when by the amendment, the party reinvents its theory of the case repeatedly or even at the last minute, because the opposing party has the right to know where it stands, that is, to know in good time what it is accused of, so as to be able to adequately defend itself, in fact as well as in law.[8]
The Court asserted that although the Amended Application arrives at new conclusions, they originate from the same “common factual framework”[9].
For these reasons, the Court permitted the Amended Application to proceed, concluding that the amendments to the initial application did not contravene the interest of justice.
—
[1] Richard v. Richard, 2025 QCCS 1676
[2] Code civil du Québec, RLRQ c CCQ-1991at Article 206
[3] Ibid at para 27.
[4] Ibid at para 50.
[5] Ibid at para 45.
[6] Ibid at para 40.
[7] Ibid at para 44.
[8] Ibid at para 55.
[9] Ibid at para 66.
Author
View all posts