A Quebec court has rejected a contractor's attempt to block an insurer's subrogated water damage claim from reaching trial.
In a decision released on April 10, 2026, Justice Luc Hervé Thibaudeau of the Court of Quebec ruled that the contractor's motion to dismiss rested on factual disputes - the kind that can only be sorted out through a full hearing on the merits.
The dispute traces back to September 22, 2025, when Federated compagnie d'assurance du Canada and 3034631 Canada Inc., operating as Tapis Oriental Bokhara, filed a claim for $42,936.11 and $2,500, respectively, against Les Constructions Gagné Lafontaine Inc. (CGL). The plaintiffs alleged that roofing and drainage work carried out by CGL on the building -including replacing the roof, installing new drains, new elastomer layers on the edges, a ventilation pipe, wooden boxes, and drains - caused water damage to the commercial tenant's premises below.
At the heart of the claim was CGL's replacement of a roof drain situated directly above the tenant's space. The plaintiffs alleged the pipe carrying water away from that drain, which ran directly above the premises, was damaged during the work. They further alleged that the only protective measure taken to keep debris from falling into the drains was the placement of a simple cloth. The water damage, they said, occurred during the first rainfall after CGL completed the work - and a neighbouring pizzeria also suffered damage the same day, pointing to a common cause tied to the construction.
CGL pushed back. On February 16, 2026, it filed a motion to dismiss the action under Article 51 of Quebec's Code of Civil Procedure, calling the claim manifestly ill-founded. CGL maintained the damage resulted from a break in the plumbing elbow inside the tenant's own premises, and that it had not performed any work on that space's plumbing or piping.
The court disagreed. Relying on established case law, including the framework set out in Fruits de mer Lagoon inc. c. Réfrigération, plomberie & chauffage Longueuil inc. (Zero-C), 2016 QCCS 1647, Justice Thibaudeau held that throwing out a claim at this early stage demands extreme caution and should happen only where it is clear the action has no reasonable chance of success. That was not the case here. The court found that the plaintiffs' allegations - the timing of the loss, the nature and location of the work, admissions from CGL's representative during written examination, and the parallel damage next door - amounted to a viable claim. The difficulty of proving those facts at trial, the court noted, is not itself a reason to shut the door before one is held.
