Media Reps LLC (“Media Reps”), a U.S. company that assists independent online publishers with their promotion, is seeking more than $15 million in damages from Simpletél inc. (“Simpletél”), a Canadian company specializing in telecommunications and IT services. However, Media Reps failed, for a period of nine months, to comply with a court order that was essential to the exercise of the rights of the defence. This failure resulted in a significant sanction: an award of $15,000 in legal costs.
Below, we provide an analysis of this instructive decision, which highlights judicial expectations regarding procedural transparency.
Cooperation and Transparency in Civil Matters: Far More Than a Formality
In this case1, the Superior Court of Québec reiterates that the duty of cooperation and transparency in civil proceedings is far more than a mere formality. A party that fails to meet this obligation exposes itself to real consequences, even where the most severe sanction, namely the dismissal of an expert report, is not imposed.
Media Reps alleged that Simpletél had diverted employees and clients. The evidence of the alleged damages relied almost exclusively on the report of Media Reps’ forensic accounting expert. In order to prepare its defence, Simpletél obtained a disclosure order covering four categories of essential documents2, including the general ledger and sales journal for the years 2013 to 2023, to be provided all in Excel format. Yet nine months after the order was issued, Media Reps had still failed to provide the required documents.
Commercial Litigation: The “Accounting System” Excuse Fails to Convince the Court
Confronted with its own inaction, Media Reps attempted to justify its failure by asserting that its accounting system was incapable of generating the required documents. The Court, however, rejected this explanation outright, expressly characterizing it as a “pretext3.” It found it implausible that a company generating several million dollars in annual revenue would lack an accounting system capable of tracing its transactions4.
Justice Demers further emphasized that Media Reps’ procedural conduct demonstrated a clear lack of cooperation, which hindered the preparation of the opposing party’s5 expert evidence. This conduct was all the more serious given that Media Reps had already been sanctioned for similar deficiencies earlier in the proceedings6.
Expert Report Upheld: The Court Dismisses Simpletél’s Request for Exclusion
Frustrated by Media Reps’ repeated deficiencies, Simpletél asked the Court to order the preliminary dismissal of the opposing party’s expert report, arguing that exemplary measures were warranted. The Court, however, declined to grant this request, specifying that the failure to disclose documents, standing alone, cannot justify such a sanction7.
As Justice Demers explained, the exclusion of an expert report may be contemplated only where the report is tainted by an irregularity, a serious error, or a lack of impartiality8. He further emphasized that the two types of misconduct alleged, namely, a refusal to cooperate and an irregularity in the report, are governed by distinct provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.C.P.”) and pursue different objectives9.
Media Reps Faces Exemplary Sanction: $15,000 in Legal Costs
Although Media Reps’ expert report was ultimately upheld, its lack of cooperation did not go without consequences. The Court sanctioned this important procedural breach by awarding legal costs10.
In this regard, it is useful to recall the broader scope of Article 341 C.C.P., which allows the court, in certain circumstances, to order a prevailing party to pay the legal costs of another party:
“The court may order the party who has prevailed to pay the legal costs incurred by another party […]. It may do so if that party has failed to provide its undertakings in the conduct of the proceeding, in particular by not respecting the applicable deadlines, or if it has unduly delayed presenting an application or a discontinuance, […].”
In the present case, Justice Demers found that Media Reps’ conduct directly contravened the guiding principles of civil procedure, which impose on parties a duty of cooperation, diligence, and transparency. According to the Court, Media Reps’ failure to disclose the requested documents infringed Simpletél’s right to be heard based on complete and independently prepared evidence11.
The Court set the sanction at $15,000— “roughly” the actual amount of extrajudicial fees incurred by Simpletél12. This amount, both compensatory and deterrent, reflects the seriousness of the breach and the Court’s intent to reaffirm the authority of its orders. The judgment sends a clear message: procedural transparency is not a mere formality; it is a fundamental obligation. Parties that attempt to evade their duties by invoking technical pretexts expose themselves to substantial financial sanctions. More broadly, the proper functioning of the justice system depends on the good faith, diligence, and cooperation of litigants.
Need legal support in litigation matters?
Contact us today.
Our litigation and dispute resolution team is here to help.
1. Media Reps v. Simpletél inc., 2025 QCCS 888.
2. Ibid., para. 29.
3. Ibid., para. 19.
4. Ibid., para. 36.
5. Ibid., paras. 39–40.
6. Ibid., para. 42.
7. Ibid., para. 1.
8. Ibid., para. 11.
9. Ibid., para. 17.
10. Pursuant to section 342, para. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.) — This provision notably provides that:“The court may, on its own initiative or on application, after hearing the parties, sanction significant failures noted in the conduct of the proceeding by ordering one party, as legal costs, to pay another party, in such amount as the court considers fair and reasonable, compensation for the payment of that party’s lawyer’s professional fees or, if that other party is not represented by a lawyer, compensation for the time devoted to the matter and the work performed.”
11. Media Reps v. Simpletél inc., 2025 QCCS 888, para. 40.
12. Ibid., para. 42.
Authors: