The Requirement for Sworn Evidence Must Apply to the Government and the Quebec Bar Too

Even more troubling is that, each time I object orally or by application, the courts have repeatedly permitted these motions to dismiss to proceed without giving effect to the evidentiary safeguards which are considered strict procedural rights entrenched in a democratic society. That is, even though the AGQ and the QB refuse to be examined on the new facts as required by law, the judges in Quebec allow them to proceed nonetheless.

A mandatory rule — article 101 C.C.P.

Section 101, paragraph 3, of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.) states:

This provision of law requires that any new fact added to the file must be supported by a sworn statement signed by the party invoking it. An affidavit is not merely paperwork; it allows the opposing party to test the credibility of the new facts being invoked, whether that be a contract or other written document even if that act is a notarial deed, a judgment from another file or any other allegation of fact contained in the motion itself including any dates or events etc which was not already invoked by the plaintiff.

As noted above, this rule applies to all parties and there is no exception for the AGQ or the QB. Yet in practice, the government rarely respects this obligation.

The right to examine the person making the allegations

Section 105 C.C.P. further provides that the oath must be sworn by a person capable of attesting to the truth of the allegations. That is, the person is required to sign the document before a commissioner of oaths and confirm by solemn declaration that all the facts are true. The other party is then authorized to examine that person out-of-court on the facts alleged in the affidavit to test the credibility of such facts.

The examination is not confined to asking whether a statement is true. It can establish the origin, authenticity, completeness, relevance and context of a document. A judgment may concern different parties or a different question. A record may omit significant surrounding circumstances. Examination can help prevent a court from inadvertently misunderstanding a document or drawing a conclusion it does not support.

A document does not invariably speak for itself. This is especially important where an institution seeks to terminate an entire lawsuit before the plaintiff can present witnesses, test disputed evidence or even obtain evidence from the adverse party.

The Court of Appeal described the right to examine a declarant as a “droit strict” in Association des locataires du Village olympique inc. v. Montréal (Ville de), 2011 QCCA 1761, at paragraph 3.

My proceedings before the Superior Court

In proceedings I brought against the QB, its representatives and the AGQ, the defendants sought dismissal under Section 51 C.C.P. The QB relied on 42 additional exhibits, while the AGQ also introduced documents that had not previously been in the record. Neither application was supported by a sworn declaration. I expressly objected and argued that Sections 101 and 105 C.C.P. had to be respected. I also requested for out-of-court examinations but the Superior Court never ordered them.

On June 10, 2026, the matter was heard by Justice Étienne Parent of the Superior Court. In his reasons, the judge acknowledged the requirement in unmistakable terms:

“On the question of the sworn statement, article 101 C.C.P. is unambiguous: the facts that a party wishes to rely on and that are not in the record must be supported by a sworn statement.”

Our translation. Original French: « Sur la question de la déclaration sous serment, l’article 101 C.p.c. ne souffre pas d’ambiguïté; les faits auxquels on veut faire référence et qui ne sont pas au dossier doivent faire l’objet d’une déclaration sous serment. »

Notwithstanding these statements, and the blatant addition of new facts and documents by the QB and the AGQ, Justice Parent did not dismiss their motions as required by paragraph 105(3) C.C.P. which provides as follows:

With respect, this paragraph does not suffer any ambiguity either. That is, read together with section 101, if there is no affidavit and one is required and the party objects to an examination, the motion should be dismissed.

On July 8, 2026, the Superior Court dismissed my claims in their entirety against the AGQ and struck substantial parts of my action against the QB, without a trial on the merits. The judgment relied a great part on facts not already in the record including judgments from other files in which I was not even a party in contradiction of the aforementioned strict rule described above.

I have brought the procedural issue before the Quebec Court of Appeal in file No. 200-09-011048-268, and the judgment of July 8, 2026 in file No. 200-09-011058-267. The motion for permission to appeal will be heard on October 19, 2026 before the Court of Appeal in Quebec City. If anyone reading this article has time to join me at this hearing via Teams, it would be tremendously appreciated.

Not an isolated objection

I have raised the same evidentiary concern in other proceedings against the AGQ and the QB. Consequently, on Tuesday, October 13, 2026, I filed a motion to adduce new evidence on appeal to submit all the other motions in which the QB and the AGQ used the same practice, which could be considered a breach of sections 101 and 105 C.C.P., to prove their modus operandi. The motion refers to various other motions, correspondence and other documents from several proceedings involving the QB and the AGQ. Not every example arose under the same procedural rules, and not every dismissal application was granted. Some include sworn declarations and concern resistance to examination. Taken together, however, they raise a serious recurring question about the consistent lack of enforcement of evidentiary safeguards by the Court against the AGQ and the QB which in the past have always been strictly applied by the courts.

Section 51 C.C.P. is an important tool for preventing abusive litigation. My concern is not that the State or the Quebec Bar should be deprived of the right to seek dismissal. It is that the procedural rules should be applied fairly to both sides. That is, the QB and AGQ should have to submit to examinations on new facts added to the file as required by ordinary litigants.

I myself have already filed motions under section 51 C.C.P. but in each case, I signed an affidavit and was careful not to breach the rights of the adverse party. If, I, as a regular individual want to safeguard rights, I would hope that legal representatives of the government and professional organizations wish to protect everyone’s rights. However, that has not been the case in my proceedings.

Due to these irregularities, it is unfair for the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal to simply presume that since the government is pleading the case, it must be the truth. There is no such rule in the code and in practice, it has not been my experience. In my case, I have not even had the opportunity to obtain all my files from the Quebec Bar, therefore, it is unimaginable that my action has been dismissed before I even obtained discovery from the adverse parties.

Have you experienced something similar?

I would greatly appreciate hearing from anyone in Québec whose lawsuit was dismissed following an application to dismiss under section 51 or 168 especially if the action was against the AGQ or another public office.

I would also be grateful to anyone interested in observing my hearing before the Quebec Court of Appeal on Monday, October 19, 2026, at 9:30 A.M. I hope that interested members of the public will be able to follow by Microsoft Teams, subject to confirmation of the Court’s public-access arrangements. Please contact me for the access information once confirmed.