Quebec Superior Court Rejects Broker’s Bid to Halt Armstrong Lawsuit
The Superior Court of Quebec has denied a motion by insurance brokerage 6809014 Canada inc.—operating as Assurance M. Pilon—to dismiss a $795,000 lawsuit filed by Adam Armstrong. The litigation stems from the 2020 destruction of a Gatineau residential property, an event that led the insurer, Intact, to void Armstrong’s policy ab initio. Justice Marie-Josée Bédard ruled on June 18, 2026, that the case must proceed to trial, citing unresolved factual disputes regarding the disclosure of Armstrong’s criminal history.
The Voided Policy and Claims of Non-Disclosure
The dispute traces back to a fire on June 21, 2020. Following an investigation, Intact voided Armstrong’s contract from its inception in August 2019. The insurer argued that the policyholder withheld critical risk factors: the absence of electrical service, the use of a wood stove for heating, and his criminal record. In November 2022, Armstrong launched his lawsuit, prompting the brokerage to seek a dismissal. Assurance M. Pilon characterized the action as an abuse of process, alleging that Armstrong lied about disclosing his criminal history to their agents.
Judicial Scrutiny of Procedural Abuse
Justice Bédard evaluated the broker’s motion under Articles 51 to 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure. To succeed in an abuse of process claim, a defendant must prove that the litigation is “manifestly ill-founded or frivolous.” The court found the evidence provided by the broker—specifically partial transcripts from a June 2021 statutory examination—to be insufficient. Justice Bédard noted that the transcripts revealed potential confusion regarding how long an offense remains on a record, particularly the difference between three and ten years following a conditional discharge.
Evidence Gaps Prevent Summary Dismissal
The court determined that a sincere, if mistaken, belief regarding the legal status of a criminal record does not equate to a failure to disclose underlying facts during an initial insurance application. “The factual framework is incomplete at this stage of the proceedings,” Justice Bédard wrote. Consequently, the court ruled that dismissing the action at this juncture would be a “draconian” measure. The truth, she concluded, requires a full evidentiary process.
Next Steps in the Evidentiary Process
The case will now advance to a full trial. The presiding judge will examine the broker’s internal files alongside the original insurance proposal to determine exactly what information was exchanged. Until then, the court maintained that any lingering doubt regarding party credibility must favor the plaintiff. The allegations of abuse of process remain on the table, to be fully vetted only when both parties provide testimony under oath at the final hearing.