In June 2020, a building owned by the insured was damaged by a fire. The insurer denied coverage for the loss because of deficient information contained in the file when the risk was underwritten. The brokerage that arranged the policy is attempting to be removed from the lawsuit, which also targets the insurer.

The brokerage’s application was heard on June 8, 2026, by Justice Marie-Josée Bédard of the Gatineau judicial district of the Superior Court of Quebec. 6809014 Canada Inc., carrying on business as Assurance M. Pilon, filed an application for dismissal and for a declaration of abuse of process based on several provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, Adam Armstrong, owns a house that was damaged by a fire in Gatineau on June 21, 2020. The insurer, Intact, conducted its investigation. It carried out a statutory examination of the plaintiff on June 28, 2021.

On January 27, 2022, Intact voided the policy ab initio on the grounds that the plaintiff had failed to disclose several material facts when the risk was underwritten in August 2019. The insurer alleges that the insured failed to mention that the residence was not connected to electricity and that its central heating was provided by a wood-burning stove. In addition, the plaintiff failed to disclose his criminal record.

The lawsuit was filed on November 11, 2022, against both the insurer and the broker. The claim amounts to $795,000. The brokerage is seeking dismissal of the action against it on the grounds that the lawsuit is abusive. It argues that the action was brought on the basis of an allegation that the plaintiff knew to be false and continues to maintain.

Analysis and reasons

In her decision rendered on June 18, 2026, Justice Bédard notes that the originating application contains only one allegation against the broker, namely that Armstrong claims he disclosed his criminal record to Assurance M. Pilon.

The brokerage argues that during his statutory examination in June 2021, the plaintiff himself admitted that he had not disclosed his criminal record. A partial transcript of that examination is reproduced in the judgment.

The brokerage “claims that the proceeding is seriously abusive and is based on a lie that the plaintiff is deliberately maintaining.”

For his part, Armstrong argues that the transcript of the examination does not make it possible to determine the timing or understand the context of the discussions he had with the broker when the policy was purchased. The transcript also does not explain the conditional discharge imposed on him in 2015. According to the plaintiff, doubt remains, and the merits of the action will have to be determined in light of a complete evidentiary record. He adds that the court must exercise caution in assessing the brokerage’s application.

Justice Bédard recalls the principles set out in sections 51 to 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure. “Abuse may be found regardless of the author’s intention, and therefore even in the absence of bad faith. Whether a proceeding is manifestly unfounded or frivolous must be determined by examining the record as a whole,” she writes, citing the relevant case law.

The Court of Appeal has repeatedly indicated that the threshold for finding an abuse of process is high. Dismissal of a proceeding “remains a drastic remedy reserved for the most serious and obvious cases.” It has also frequently reiterated that the apparent weakness of a claim is not sufficient to declare it abusive.

The insurer relies on the plaintiff’s failure to disclose his criminal record as one of the grounds for voiding the policy ab initio. The plaintiff does not specify the fault he attributes to the brokerage.

In his action, Armstrong alleges that he informed the brokerage of his criminal record. During the examination conducted by Intact in June 2021, he was asked whether he remembered answering questions from his broker about his criminal record.

“It is apparent from the remainder of the examination that there may have been some confusion on the plaintiff’s part regarding his criminal record.” It appears that it was the broker herself who explained to him that the offence would remain on his record for ten years, rather than three years as he had believed after receiving his conditional discharge. The date of that discussion with the broker is not specified.

If the plaintiff sincerely believed that he did not have a criminal record, the fact that he did not immediately answer that he did not have one does not necessarily mean that he failed to disclose his criminal record to the broker. The factual record remains incomplete at this stage of the proceedings, the court notes.

Accordingly, Justice Bédard concludes that it is premature to terminate the action brought by the plaintiff against the brokerage. The testimony of both the plaintiff and the broker, including cross-examinations, will allow the court to determine whether the plaintiff is credible in asserting that he did in fact inform the broker of his criminal record.

The trial judge will also have access to the brokerage’s file and the insurance application. At this stage of the proceedings, doubt remains, and it must operate in the plaintiff’s favour. The trial judge will have to rule on the brokerage’s allegation that the action brought against it constitutes an abuse of process.