Despite obtaining a favourable judgment at trial, the life insurance representative sought to appeal because she was dissatisfied with the damages awarded. Her arguments failed to convince the Quebec Court of Appeal.
In its November 2024 judgment, the Quebec Superior Court had awarded just over $103,000 to the plaintiffs: representative Katia Mussel and the insurance and financial services planning firm that bears her name.
Mussel, who holds several certificates, is the firm's sole shareholder and director. The plaintiffs had sought more than $4.4 million from Industrial Alliance Financial Services (IAFS).
The plaintiffs alleged a breach of contract in November 2015, following 13 years of service in the insurer's career distribution network at its Laval agency. The lawsuit was filed in July 2017.
The Superior Court had ruled in favour of the firm regarding the abusive nature of the non-compete clause in the contract, which contained no geographical restriction. The amount awarded by the court corresponded to deductions imposed by the insurer for breach of contract when it bought back the firm's right of representation.
On March 3, 2025, IAFS unsuccessfully sought to have the appeal dismissed.
The three judges heard the parties on October 7. The minutes of the hearing, which are available only in French, serve as the judgment. The three judges' decision dismissing the appeal consists of just two paragraphs.
The appellants raised eight grounds of appeal and alleged dozens of errors, essentially arguing that the trial judge had failed to accept the plaintiffs' version of events. They alleged errors in the assessment of witness testimony and in the evaluation of the abusive nature of the various contractual clauses binding the parties.
The appellants failed to demonstrate that the trial court's findings were tainted by palpable and overriding errors. “Instead, they invited the Court to retry the case, which is not its role.” The appeal was dismissed.
