An Act to facilitate the payment of support (s.Q. 1995, c. 18)

September 1, 1999

Download this publication

Back to the publications list

Written by

Elisabeth Pinard
Counsel

Stay abreast of breaking legal news

M’abonner

May 6, 2026

Eight partners recognized as leaders in Canada for their expertise in infrastructure, according to Lexpert

On May 6, 2026, Lexpert recognized the expertise of five of our partners in its 2026 Lexpert Special Edition:Infrastructure. Laurence Bich-Carrière, Jean-Sébastien Desroches, Christian Dumoulin, Nicolas Gagnon, Édith Jacques, Marc-André Landry, Ouassim Tadlaoui and André Vautour now rank among Canada’s leaders in supporting economic players in the infrastructure industry. Laurence Bich-Carrière, is a member of the Quebec and Ontario Bar Associations, Laurence Bich-Carrière practices within the Litigation and Dispute Resolution group, in a versatile civil and commercial litigation practice specializing in complex litigation (class actions, appeals, extraordinary remedies, private international law). Jean-Sébastien Desroches practises business law and focuses primarily on mergers and acquisitions, infrastructure, renewable energy and project development as well as strategic partnerships. He has had the opportunity to steer several major transactions—complex legal operations, cross-border transactions, reorganizations, and investments—in Canada and at an international level on behalf of Canadian, American, and European clients and international corporations and institutional clients in the manufacturing, transportation, pharmaceutical, financial, and renewable energy sectors. Christian Dumoulin is a partner in the firm’s Business Law Group. He served as Managing Partner of the Sherbrooke office from 2015 to 2023 and sat on the firm’s Board of Directors from 2015 to 2017, and again in 2024. He specializes in mergers and acquisitions, commercial law and real estate law, and acts as a business and strategic advisor to clients of all sizes. Recognized for his rigour and practical approach, he supports clients in complex transactions (reorganizations, financings, sales and acquisitions, shareholder disputes). He has also been advising on infrastructure projects for more than fifteen years, including public-private partnerships, as well as on all aspects of commercial real estate law. Nicolas Gagnon focuses his practice on construction law and suretyship. He counsels contractors, public and private sector clients, professional services firms as well as surety companies at every stage of construction projects. He advises clients on the public bidding and procurement processes and participates in the negotiation and drafting of contractual documents involving various project delivery methods, such as public-private partnership projects and design, construction, financing and maintenance contracts. In addition to advising various construction industry stakeholders on construction management and any claims that may arise, he also assists them with dispute resolution processes. Édith Jacques is a partner in the Business Law Group in Montréal. She specializes in mergers and acquisitions and commercial and international law. Édith acts as strategic business advisor for medium to large private companies. Marc-André Landry is a member of the Litigation and Conflict Resolution group and focuses his practice on commercial litigation. He frequently assists his clients in resolving their disputes through negotiation, mediation or arbitration, or before the various courts of law. Over the years, he has represented businesses in many sectors, including construction, real estate, renewable energy, conventional energy, new technologies, financial services and pharmaceuticals. Ouassim Tadlaoui is a partner in the firm’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution Group and focuses his practice on banking litigation, restructuring, bankruptcy and insolvency, as well as construction surety. He represents chartered banks and other financial institutions and alternative lenders as creditors, as well as certain debtors, in bankruptcy and restructuring proceedings. He also represents and advises surety companies, as well as national and international businesses, in insolvency, bankruptcy and restructuring matters in the construction industry. André Vautour practises corporate law and commercial law, and is specifically interested in corporate governance, strategic alliances, joint ventures, investment funds, and mergers and acquisitions of private companies. He also practises technology law (drafting technology development and transfer agreements, licensing agreements, distribution agreements, outsourcing agreements, and e-commerce agreements). About Lavery Lavery is the leading independent law firm in Quebec. Its more than 200 professionals, based in Montréal, Québec City, Sherbrooke and Trois-Rivières, work every day to offer a full range of legal services to organizations doing business in Quebec. Recognized by the most prestigious legal directories, Lavery professionals are at the heart of what is happening in the business world and are actively involved in their communities. The firm’s expertise is frequently sought after by numerous national and international partners to provide support in cases under Quebec jurisdiction.

Read more

Publications that might interest you

June 8, 2026

AI for All: Canada focuses on responsible adoption

On June 4, Canada unveiled AI for All, its new national artificial intelligence strategy. Anchored in the principle that the benefits of AI must accrue to all Canadians, the strategy emphasizes the democratization of AI through expanded training, governance, and Canadian infrastructure. A strategy centred on adoption Canada’s new national AI strategy rests on the premise that the benefits of AI will materialize only if individuals, businesses, and institutions are able to use it with confidence. The government notes a significant gap between AI’s potential in Canada and its actual adoption. According to Statistics Canada, only 12% of Canadian businesses used AI to produce goods or services between mid-2024 and mid-2025. The stated objective is to increase that rate to 60% by 2034. To achieve this, the strategy is structured around six pillars: protecting Canadians and safeguarding democracy, developing skills, promoting adoption, building sovereign infrastructure, supporting Canadian AI champions, and strengthening trusted international partnerships. Trust as a driver of adoption The strategy emphasizes that trust is not presented as an obstacle to innovation, but rather as a condition for its adoption. In particular, the strategy provides for the modernization of privacy rules, protection against certain online harms, transparency of AI systems, and strengthened capacity for the Canadian AI Safety Institute. The government also announced its intention to advance measures such as watermarking AI-generated content, transparent model evaluation, a Canadian certification program for trustworthy AI, and support for the standards ecosystem. For organizations, this confirms an underlying trend: AI will not be assessed solely on the basis of technical performance, but also on its transparency, security, governance, and protection of personal information. Training before broad deployment The strategy places significant emphasis on AI literacy. Canada plans to create a National AI Literacy Initiative, provide training content to one million post-secondary students and more than 3,000 teachers, and give post-secondary students access to trustworthy AI agents. This approach reflects the recognition that AI adoption depends not only on access to tools, but also on users’ ability to understand risks, limitations, biases, misinformation, and privacy issues. The strategy also extends training efforts to workers already in the labour market. It provides support for reskilling pathways for mid-career workers, practical training tailored to real-world AI use cases in workplaces, and employer-led training, particularly with the support of colleges, CEGEPs, and polytechnic institutions. The objective is to ensure that AI adoption benefits workers by strengthening their skills, productivity, and ability to participate in the transformation of their organizations. Helping organizations move from experimentation to implementation This component of the strategy is aimed particularly at small and medium-sized enterprises. The government observes that many organizations are already experimenting with AI, but that the transition to sustainable integration remains more difficult. Identified barriers include costs, access to expertise, and uncertainty about the first steps to be taken. Measures announced include the Business Development Bank of Canada’s LIFT program, a $500 million initiative to help Canadian SMEs access the financing needed to integrate AI tools into their operations, as well as a $500 million investment to strengthen the Regional Artificial Intelligence Initiative. The strategy also provides for AI literacy and readiness assessment tools to help businesses identify concrete use cases. Health as the first “national mission” The government plans to launch an AI missions program. The first mission will focus on health, with $200 million allocated to improving outcomes in that sector. The strategy specifically targets applications related to access to care, wait times, avoidable visits, and reducing physicians’ administrative burden. This mission-based approach reflects a desire to concentrate efforts on concrete problems rather than treating AI as an abstract technology. It also seeks to bring researchers, businesses, governments, and practitioners together around measurable objectives. Sovereignty as a strategic issue The strategy presents digital sovereignty as a central issue. It notes that several essential capabilities (computing, cloud infrastructure, connectivity, data, and talent) remain largely located outside Canada. This dependence can expose sensitive data, intellectual property, and critical infrastructure to foreign rules or decisions. Canada plans, among other things, to build a world-class public supercomputer, expand sovereign computing and cloud infrastructure, and invest in secure digital systems for government operations. Supporting Canadian AI champions The strategy also links sovereignty to the ability to grow Canadian businesses domestically. The government states that, in order to retain its most successful entrepreneurs and companies, as well as its most valuable intellectual property, Canada must strengthen its investment environment, support domestic commercialization, and enable companies to compete from within Canada. In this regard, the strategy provides, among other measures, an additional $700 million in affordable sovereign computing capacity for Canadian SMEs, allowing them to develop, test, and deploy their products on Canadian infrastructure rather than relying primarily on foreign platforms. Establishing trusted international partnerships Finally, the strategy presents international alliances as a lever for resilience, sovereignty, and market access. Canada intends to work with trusted partners to develop shared AI capabilities, harmonize standards, support more resilient supply chains, and offer alternatives to closed systems or systems that are not aligned with democratic values. This direction includes expanding the Sovereign Technology Alliance, supporting open-source AI, and using diplomatic and trade networks to attract investment, promote Canadian champions, and open new markets. Key takeaways The publication of the AI for All strategy confirms a shift observed for several years: the question is no longer whether organizations will adopt AI, but how they will do so. For several years, discussions surrounding AI focused primarily on technological breakthroughs, investment, and competitiveness. Canada’s strategy instead emphasizes the conditions required for sustainable adoption: trust, skills, governance, infrastructure, and organizations’ ability to integrate these tools into their day-to-day operations. This shift is significant. The question is no longer only what AI is capable of doing, but how organizations can use it effectively, responsibly, and in a manner suited to their context. In this respect, the challenges facing organizations in the coming years will likely be less technological than organizational. The ability to develop a culture of innovation, train teams, implement appropriate governance mechanisms, and maintain stakeholder trust may prove just as decisive as the choice of tools themselves. The federal strategy also acknowledges a reality that is becoming increasingly clear: AI is no longer solely a matter of productivity or innovation. It is gradually becoming an issue of sovereignty, economic resilience, and long-term competitiveness. In this context, it will be particularly interesting to observe how organizations, institutions, and the various levels of government translate these directions into concrete practices. As is often the case with innovation, true transformation will not arise solely from the technologies that exist, but from the way they are integrated into the processes, decisions, and relationships of trust that shape our organizations.

Read more
April 24, 2026

Game-changers: Several sports-related patents that raised the bar (or at least raised our eyebrows)

The theme for this year’s World Intellectual Property Day is “IP and Sports: Ready, Set, Innovate”, celebrating IP’s contributions to the world of athletics, athletes, and fans alike. It may seem surprising, but the world of IP has always been strongly linked to sports, whether it be cutting-edge equipment and gear, or the latest trends and brands in apparel. In honour of this year’s theme, we at Lavery thought it would be fun to highlight various sports-related inventions that have been patented over the years. From the serious to the downright silly, we have chosen several patents that show IP’s important, and sometimes bizarre, contributions to sports and athletics. US 2642679A: Ice rink resurfacing machine Starting with a classic, Frank J. Zamboni’s 1949 patent for an “Ice rink resurfacing machine” is recognizable to anyone who’s ever attended a hockey game. Fun fact: between 1928 and 1978, Frank Zamboni was awarded a total of 15 patents related to ice resurfacing machines as well as other technologies.1 US 267799A: Cork swimming-suit Before there were swimsuits made of space-age materials featuring ultra-hydrodynamic designs, we apparently had swimsuits made of… cork? Patented by Paschal Plant in 1882, this suit was intended to be sufficiently buoyant so as to “enable a person to float with perfect security” and aid in coming up to the surface after a dive. Water safety has never been so fashionable! US6446264B2: Articles of clothing Fast forward 120 years to see how far swimwear innovation has advanced. The use of such “tech suits” correlated with the breaking of numerous swimming world records when introduced, emphasizing the real impact of innovation. US2662587A: Chair for aerial skilifts While modern ski lift technology has existed since the 1930s, Mcilvaine Alexander’s 1949 patent was the first to feature a retractable footrest that could be brought by the passenger into operating position during loading, thereby no longer requiring as much help from attendants.2 US642544A: Bicycle Patented by Louis S. Burbank in 1898, this “innovative” bicycle design is intended to “provide means whereby one may enjoy with a bicycle or similar vehicle exercise like that of rowing” and is “adapted to develop the muscles of the arms and body as well as those of the legs”. Looking at the image above, many questions arise, for example relating to starting, staying upright, and stopping. US638920A: Golf-tee According to the National Golf Foundation, at least 22,000 patents related in some way to golf were filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) between 1976 and 2018, the most of any sport by far.3 For comparison, baseball, the second most patented sport, saw 1,508 patents filed in the same period. An early example of a golf-related patent is this one for a “wooden” golf tee, patented by George F. Grant in 1899. According to the patent, the wooden golf tee was intended to replace “the usual conical mounds of sand or similar material formed by the fingers of the player on which the ball is supported when driving off”. US12011645B2: Golf tee Some 135 years later and golf tee innovation continues, in this case with a two-part design in which the upper portion can move and/or detach from the lower portion when the ball is struck, minimizing any resistance from the tee. US5356330A: Apparatus for simulating a "high five" When looking at technical achievements in sports, one can’t overlook the crowds of adoring fans. With that said, this invention relates to a self-righting hand-arm configuration, which is adapted to pivot when struck by a user, thereby simulating a "high five". According to the patent, solitary fans are, tragically, “unable to perform a ‘high five’ to express excitement during a televised sporting event”, making this invention nothing short of miraculous for such individuals. Other features of this invention include a “miniaturized, battery operated sound generator and speaker, for outputting a predetermined or user selectable sound in response to the striking of the simulated hand”. These sounds can include the “the cheer of a crowd or the voice of a specific player”. US1718305A: Basket ball Patented by George L. Pierce in 1928, this invention changed the look of basketballs to something more closely resembling their modern-day counterparts. According to the patent, basketballs had previously been made with panels tapering down to narrow points. This invention ensured a properly balanced basketball in which the best portions of the hide were saved and used in the pole portions of the ball. It is worth noting that basketballs were actually a dark brown until the late 1950s. The iconic orange colour we recognize today was initially selected by basketball coach Tony Hinkle, who thought it would be easier for fans to see.4 And there you have it, several sports-related patents, which—while not all game-changers—hopefully illustrated IP’s longstanding and far-reaching relationship with the world of athletics. It remains to be seen what wondrous (and wacky) inventions the future holds. https://zamboni.com/about/zamboni-archives/patents/ https://gizmodo.com/17-historic-patents-that-make-winter-olympic-sports-pos-1520995330 https://www.dennemeyer.com/ip-blog/news/everyday-ip-the-notable-ip-of-golf-basketball-and-other-sports/ https://suiter.com/basketball-patents/

Read more
April 20, 2026

Professional disciplinary matters: The Professions Tribunal reiterates the conditions required to accept a guilty plea

In the Henry decision rendered on January 16, 2026,1 the Professions Tribunal reiterated what framework applies to a guilty plea in disciplinary matters. In this case, the professional had pleaded guilty during his conviction hearing. After having ascertained that his pleas were made freely and voluntarily, the Disciplinary Council of the Ordre des dentistes (the “Council”) declared him guilty. However, the Council had not ensured that the professional admitted to the facts relating to the key elements of the offences at issue. During the penalty hearing, the professional raised questions about his guilty pleas. Although the Council had considered whether his pleas were valid and whether to withdraw them and return the case to a conviction hearing, the hearing continued and penalties were imposed on the professional. On appeal of the Council’s decision, the Professions Tribunal concluded that the Council had erred in accepting the professional’s guilty pleas when it had become clear that he denied the facts put forward in support of the charges against him. The Professions Tribunal concluded that the Disciplinary Council of the Ordre des dentistes had erred in accepting the appellant’s guilty plea when it had become clear that he denied the facts put forward in support of the charges against him. The Professions Tribunal reasons were based on the following: The Professional Code2 contains no specific provisions governing the entering of a guilty plea.3 In the absence of specific rules, disciplinary law can draw inspiration from the criteria developed in criminal and penal law.4 By pleading guilty, the professional waives their right to a formal investigation and associated procedural safeguards.5 Pleading guilty is a significant decision in disciplinary proceedings, as it inevitably brings the investigation to a close and has detrimental consequences on the professional who pleads guilty.6 This decision serves as a reminder of the two-prong test7 a Disciplinary Council must use to accept a guilty plea: Admission by the professional: The professional must have formally admitted to the key legal elements of the offence.8 To be valid, a guilty plea must be voluntary, unequivocal and made with full knowledge of its effects and consequences.9 Acceptance by the Council: The Council may only accept the plea after ensuring that the professional knows and understands the nature of the offence they are charged with and the effects of their guilty plea. The Council must also confirm that the professional admits to the facts relating to the key elements of the offence in question.10 This decision also introduces the requirement to submit a joint statement of the facts11 or provide an account of the facts that led to the offences in order to properly contextualize them.12 Failure to comply with these requirements could result in the professional’s guilty plea being contested or dismissed by the Disciplinary Council. More recently in the Fernandez decision,13 the Disciplinary Council of the College des médecins was called upon to rule on whether the requirements of the Henry decision applied, in particular regarding the filing of a joint statement or account of the facts giving rise to the offences. In this case, the Council had taken cognizance of the Henry decision after having accepted the professional’s guilty plea, and no joint statement had been filed. After allowing the parties to present their observations, the Council declared itself satisfied with the parties’ claims that the Fernandez case differed from the Henry case in that Dr. Fernandez had admitted to the facts relating to the essential elements of the charge, that he had filed a 17-page statement, and that the Syndic had filed documents containing the accounts of eight patients. It will be interesting to follow how case law will develop on this issue to confirm what direction the various disciplinary councils will take. The members of Lavery’s professional and disciplinary law team regularly represent professional orders and professionals. They are available to advise you and answer your questions. Summary A guilty plea may expedite the disciplinary process, but it has the effect of depriving the accused professional of certain procedural safeguards. It is important to ensure that the conditions of validity and acceptance of a guilty plea are met, otherwise it may be dismissed or overturned on appeal. Summary evidence must be taken before a professional pleads guilty, whether it be through the filing of a joint statement of facts, the presentation of an account of the facts by one of the parties or the submission of documentary evidence. Henry c. Dentistes (Ordre professionnel des), 2026 QCTP 1 2 CQLR C-26. Henry c. Dentistes (Ordre professionnel des), 2026 QCTP 1, para. 24 Id. Id. Id., para. 27 Id., para. 25 Id., para. 26 Id., para. 28 Id., para. 27 and 29. Id., para. 30 Id., para. 31 Médecins (Ordre professionnel des) c. Fernandez, 2026 QCCDMD 5

Read more
April 16, 2026

Interpreting Builders Risk Insurance: the Court of Appeal Sets the Record Straight

The Court of Appeal intervenes in an interpretation dispute between a general contractor and its builders risk insurance carrier, the latter declining to indemnify the former for certain financial losses resulting from a flood that occurred at a construction site. FACTS General contractor CRT Construction Inc. (“CRT”) was charged with construction work by the City of Montréal (the “City”) in May 2017 at the Atwater drinking water treatment plant, a major project that included building several structures for underground water management. The City required CRT, among other things, to purchase builders risk insurance, which it did from the defendant insurer (the “Insurer”). At the time of securing the insurance, a flood coverage extension was taken out by way of endorsement, given the construction site’s proximity to a water source (the “Endorsement”). On November 12, 2017, a major flood occurred on site. The ensuing corrective work undertaken at the breach lasted around four (4) months. During this time, although CRT was able to continue a portion of the construction work (50%), the other portion remained at a standstill as it gave way to the repair work. A forensic accountant was hired by the Insurer to assess the extent of the damages allegedly sustained and claimed by CRT.1 These fall into two (2) categories: 1) costs incurred to repair the breach and restore the construction site2 (the “Costs of Repairs”) and 2) additional costs associated with construction delays3 (the “Additional Costs”). The Insurer agreed to indemnify CRT for the Costs of Repairs, but not for the Additional Costs. TRIAL Hence, the Superior Court of Québec was asked to study the policy at hand—including the Endorsement—and to decide the fate of CRT’s claim for the Additional Costs. The builders risk insurance policy provided that the base coverage included damage to “[translation] insured property arising from those perils designated as covered”. The term “property” referred to that property “located at the ‘construction site’”. The “cost of making good […]”, as well as “damage caused directly or indirectly by the interruption of construction […]” and “by delay, loss of market or loss of use”, were, on the other hand, excluded. However, the Endorsement provided that “[translation] coverage extends to direct physical loss or damage caused to insured property by a ‘flood’ occurring at the ‘construction site’ […]” and that damage resulting from a flood, under any coverage offered, were to be adjusted as one claim. Relying on the definition of “Sinistre” [“Occurrence”]4 included in the Endorsement, CRT contended that the extension of coverage applied to any type of damage, provided it resulted from a flood, such an interpretation being in keeping with CRT’s expectations, at the time of securing the insurance, to be fully covered in the event of flooding. The Insurer, however, argued the opposite: both the base coverage and the extension of coverage under the Endorsement applied only to direct damage to the insured property, the consequences of any delays otherwise being excluded. The trial judge agreed with the interpretation put forward by CRT and held that the claim for Additional Costs was admissible on grounds that: The Insurer viewed the flood as one and the same “Occurrence”—as it caused all costs claimed to be assessed, and the Costs of Repairs to be reimbursed to CRT, it follows that the Additional Costs should also be indemnified; The Insurer was unable to establish the applicability of any exclusion, and any ambiguity should be construed in favour of the insured; The definition of “Occurrence” included in the Endorsement provided for broad and complete coverage of any damage resulting directly or indirectly from a flood occurring at the construction site; and This interpretation, moreover, was in keeping with CRT’s reasonable expectations at the time of securing the insurance. APPEAL The Court of Appeal overturned the trial judgment. The interpretation upheld at trial did not take into account the true purpose of the insurance coverage, which is the cornerstone of the analytical framework. The Court recalled in passing the well-known three-stage test.5 Having found that the insurance coverage under the Endorsement applied in the event of a flood and thus simplifying the dispute, the Court of Appeal held that the terms of such Endorsement were clear and unequivocal: this extended coverage was limited to “[translation] direct damage to insured property”.6 Any losses of a different nature, such as the Additional Costs in the present case, were not included. There is no basis for resorting to the definition of “Occurrence” and doing so would have had the undesirable effect of unduly extending the coverage provided by the Endorsement. Relying on the Endorsement’s structure as a whole, the Court found that the definition of “Occurrence” was not meant to define coverage, but rather to implement the applicable deductible and limit of insurance. COMMENTS This decision is a practical reminder of the framework for interpreting an insurance policy and, further, of the overarching criterion that is the true purpose of coverage. Keeping this purpose and analytical framework in mind helps with interpretation, and also when it comes to resolving issues arising from a misalignment of an insured’s expectations with the insurance protection secured. It is also interesting to note the consideration of the text’s structure, in addition to its wording, as a guideline for analysis. Moreover, a review of this kind requires that the insurance policy as a whole be considered, rather than isolating the endorsements that are added to it and modify coverage. This is also the purport of the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in Emond v. Trillium Mutual Insurance Co.7 It is worthy of note that the assessment was produced without taking into account the coverage under the builders risk insurance policy. Cleaning, securing and repairing the site. Additional wages and per diems, workers’ inefficiency, wage indexing and cost increases, plus administrative costs and loss of profits. “[Translation] ‘Occurrence’: all loss or damage attributable directly or indirectly to one cause or a series of similar or related causes. All such loss or damage shall be treated as one (1) and the same ‘occurrence’.” Namely, 1) proof by the insured that the claim is included in the insurance coverage provided, 2) proof by the insurer of the applicability of an exclusion and 3) proof by the insured of the applicability of an exception to the exclusion. Our emphasis. 2026 SCC 3. See para. 36 of the decision: “[36] Endorsements are not self-contained and standalone contracts disconnected from the insurance policy of which they form a part. An endorsement “changes or varies or amends the underlying policy” (Pilot Insurance Co. v. Sutherland, 2007 ONCA 492, 86 O.R. (3d) 789, at para. 21). Some endorsements may be “comprehensive on the subject of the particular coverage provided in the endorsement”, but they are still “built on the foundation of the policy” (ibid.; see also Pickford Black Ltd. v. Canadian General Insurance Co., [1977] 1 S.C.R. 261, at pp. 265-66). It follows that endorsements do not change the generally advisable order. Aspects of the endorsement that affect coverage are considered as part of the coverage conferred by the insurance contract, aspects that create exclusions are considered later, followed by any exceptions to the exclusions created.”

Read more