Review of 1995 Judgments

July 1, 1996

Download this publication

Back to the publications list

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

October 3, 2025

Public construction: Prompt payments and simplified dispute resolution

On July 30, 2025, the Regulation respecting prompt payments and the prompt settlement of disputes with regard to construction work (hereinafter the “Regulation”) was published in the Gazette officielle du Québec. Since September 8, 2025, the Regulation has been coming into force gradually,1 in response to requests from some involved the construction industry. The Regulation applies to the majority of construction contracts concluded with public bodies covered by the Act respecting contracting by public bodies (chapter C-65.1, r. 8.01) (hereinafter the “ACPB”). The Regulation aims to fix chronic payment delays in the construction industry by establishing binding standards to speed up the payment process for contractors and subcontractors involved in public contracts covered by the ACPB. It also introduces a rapid dispute resolution process. The Regulation thus complements An Act mainly to promote Québec-sourced and responsible procurement by public bodies, to reinforce the integrity regime of enterprises and to increase the powers of the Autorité des marchés publics.2 The following is a summary of some of the Regulation’s key provisions. Cases of application and exclusions The Regulation applies to all public construction contracts and subcontracts subject to the ACPB, with the following exceptions:3 contracts entered into in an emergency because of a threat to the safety of persons or property contracts entered into for the purpose of activities on foreign soil of a delegation general, a delegation or another form of representation of Québec abroad a monetary claim to compensate for a loss of profit, productivity or a business opportunity that a contractor considers it has suffered because of a change relating to the scope of the work specified in a public contract or public subcontract, or to the conditions for its performance Deadlines and schedule imposed by the Regulations The Regulation establishes a rigid payment request, refusal and payment schedule: Request for payment4 Sent by the general contractor to the public body: 1st day of the month Sent by the subcontractor to the general contractor: 25th day of the month Refusal to pay5 Sent by the general contractor to the subcontractor: 21st day of the month Sent by the public body to the general contractor: Last day of the month Payment deadline (if applicable)6 By the public body to the general contractor: Last day of the month By the general contractor to the subcontractor: 5th day of 2nd month From a subcontractor to another: 10th day of 2nd month If the subcontracting chain has more than two subcontracting levels, the payment deadline is extended by five days for each additional level. These deadlines are intended make the payment process uniform and predictable. It is possible for parties to amend their requests after they have been sent.7 Request for payment A request for payment must be in writing and contain the following information : the name and address of the contractor and the contact information of the representative of the contractor the number of the public contract a detailed description of the work carried out, the expenses incurred and any other element for which a sum of money is claimed the periods associated with elements claimed a breakdown of the total amount claimed8 If the public body requires the presentation of supporting documents with a request for payment from a contractor party to a contract, it must include such condition in the contract and specify which documents are required. The same principle applies to subcontracts between contractors and their subcontractors.9 Importantly, the public body may allow the contractor to amend the request for payment to correct any deficiency, except for requests rendered invalid by the date on which they were sent. If no question of invalidity has been raised with the contractor before the deadline to indicate a refusal to pay, the payment request will be deemed valid.10 Refusal to pay A refusal to pay must be expressed in a written notice containing the following information: the part of the total amount claimed that is refused a description of the work, expenses or elements of the request for payment to which the refusal applies the grounds for the refusal and the contractual or legal provisions on which they are based11 The refusal of a request for payment cannot be based solely on the fact that the work carried out is the result of a change to the contract and that, when the request for payment was sent, the value of the change had yet to be agreed on or determined.12 Payments and withholdings In certain circumstances, the public body may withhold any sum claimed by the contractor: A sum sufficient to cover any reservations for apparent defects or poor workmanship in the work.13 A sum sufficient to repair any damage caused by the general contractor or a subcontractor to the work.14 A sum previously paid to the general contractor for work performed by one of its subcontractors to ensure that the latter’s claims are paid by the general contractor or to enable the public body to pay these claims itself. This right to withhold exists regardless of whether the subcontractor can invoke a legal hypothec on the construction or not.15 A sum sufficient to pay the claims of persons other than the contractor’s subcontractors can invoke a construction legal hypothec on the work and who have given notice of their contract to the contractor, for work completed or the materials or services supplied after the notice was given.16 Up to 10% of the sum owed to ensure performance of the contract, provided that this possibility and its terms are stipulated in the contract. A general contractor may, in turn, withhold sums from its subcontractors, provided that a written agreement allows this and that the withholding does not exceed the withholding applied to the contractor by the public body. Each level of subcontracting can avail itself of this right, with the necessary modifications.17 All sums payable to the contractor if it has not provided all closeout documents, including the certificate issued by the CNESST in accordance with the law and final acquittances from subcontractors.18 Except in the last two cases, a general contractor may offer the public body sufficient security in lieu of the withholding, such as a bond or a letter of guarantee from a bank. In turn, the general contractor may deduct from a payment owed to one of its subcontractors an amount representing the sum claimed by that subcontractor for work, where that work has been identified in a notice of refusal issued by another debtor in the contracting chain. To avail itself of this right, the contractor must first have sent the subcontractor a copy of the notice of refusal on which it is relying.19 Subcontractors, for their part, must send the notice of deduction to their own subcontractors, if any, within two days of receiving the notice.20 In all cases, the Regulation provides for the release of the deductions applied when the conditions for release are met. Prompt dispute settlement The Regulation introduces a dispute settlement process by which the parties have recourse to a third-person decider after having attempted to settle the dispute amicably.21 Initiated by a “request for intervention,” the process is intended to be rapid, with decisions to be made within 50 days of the designation of the third-person decider.22 More specifically, this mechanism provides for the following stages and deadlines: Stages Time allowed Request for intervention 90 days after work accepted or completed* Other contracting party’s response 5 days Designation of the third-person decider 5 days Outline of claims by applicant 5 days Detailed response from other contracting party 15 days Decider’s decision 50 days from the designation date (this period may be extended for a maximum of 15 days) Payment, if any 20 days after decision rendered * In the case of a contract between a general contractor and a public body, the request for intervention must be notified to the other contracting party no later than 90 days after the date on which the work was accepted without reservation, or, if accepted with reservation, the date on which the public body declares that it is satisfied with the repairs or corrections made to the work. In the case of a subcontract, the request for intervention must be notified no later than 90 days from the date the work the parties agreed on is completed.23 The Regulation also provides for the following: One dispute, one request for intervention – Although a request for intervention can relate to one dispute alone, a party cannot dissociate the constituting elements of the dispute in order to file multiple requests or otherwise act to abuse the right to have recourse to a third-person decider. Choice of third-person decider – Only persons whose names appear in the register kept by the Minister of Justice under the Regulation may act as third-person deciders. It is up to the party proposing a third-person decider to ensure that the person is available. In the event of disagreement, the parties draw lots. Procedure – As long as they ensure that the procedure is equitable and complies with the principle of proportionality, the third-person decider can conduct the intervention according to the procedure they determine. Also, unless the third-person decider decides otherwise, the proceedings are conducted orally, whereas testimony is given by way of a written affidavit. No lawyers – Parties cannot be represented by a lawyer during proceedings, although a lawyer may advise them. Confidentiality – The entire intervention remains confidential, subject to agreement between the parties or legal obligations. Third-person decider’s fees – As a general rule, the third-person decider’s fees are allocated equally between the parties (50-50), although the third-person decider may depart from this allocation if they consider that a party’s actions during the intervention were harmful, in particular because of abusive conduct or failure to meet deadlines. The third-person decider’s fees are capped according to the value of the dispute. Conclusion This new compulsory scheme now imposes, for cases covered, a prompt payment process and speeds up the settlement of disputes arising during the performance of the majority of public construction contracts. It will have major repercussions on the practices of contractors, subcontractors and public bodies alike. The imposition of the strict deadlines by the Regulation could require contractors and subcontractors to improve their internal processes to better process payment requests and properly document potential claims. Although the Regulation is intended to simplify and accelerate payments, some contractors and subcontractors may find it difficult to meet the imposed deadlines, especially in large-scale projects involving many stakeholders, as delays are likely to be passed on from one level of subcontractor to another. Whether this system will be successful will depend on the ability of the parties to quickly adapt to the new requirements and to make effective use of the third-person decider to resolve disputes. If you have any questions or need advice, we invite you to contact a member of our specialized construction law team at Lavery. Section 94 of the Regulation. SQ, 2022, c. 18. Sections 32 and 33 of the Regulation. Section 5 of the Regulation. Section 10 of the Regulation. Section 15 of the Regulation. Sections 7 and 8 of the Regulation. Section 5 of the Regulation. Section 6 para. 1 of the Regulation. Section 6 of the Regulation. Section 11 of the Regulation. Section 12 para. 1 of the Regulation. Section 22 of the Regulation. Section 23 of the Regulation. Section 25 of the Regulation. Section 26 of the Regulation. Section 20 of the Regulation. Section 28 of the Regulation. Section 16 of the Regulation. Section 16 of the Regulation. Sections 34 to 76 of the Regulation. Section 63 of the Regulation. Section 34 of the Regulation.

Read more
April 2, 2025

Application for an interim injunction: Manufactured urgency is not a 9-1-1 emergency

On March 3, 2025, Superior Court Justice Nancy Bonsaint dismissed an application for an interim interlocutory injunction that would allow Les Entreprises de la Batterie inc. to use a property it did not own for major construction work on its building. The judgment serves as a reminder that a party cannot manufacture a sense of urgency and then use that to support its application for an interim injunction. Summary of facts The Plaintiff, Les Entreprises de la Batterie inc., owns a building that has been under construction since March 2021, in order to convert it into a hotel that will serve as an extension to the hotel the Plaintiff currently operates.1 The Defendant owns a hotel and a piece of property adjacent to the building under construction. The property is used as a parking lot for his hotel guests.2 Construction work on the Plaintiff’s building was initially carried out in two separate phases, from March to November 20213 and from August 23, 2022, to July 2024.4 During those phases, the Parties reached various agreements whereby the Plaintiff could use one (1) of the Defendant’s parking spaces, in exchange for compensation.5 On February 14, 2025, the Plaintiff informed the Defendant that it planned to begin a new phase of construction (Phase 3) on February 28, 2025.6 The Plaintiff also informed the Defendant that, as part of the new phase of construction, the Plaintiff would need to use half of the Defendant’s parking lot, that is, six (6) parking spaces, and that the entrance to the parking lot would have to be relocated for more than two (2) years.7 Additionally, the Plaintiff pointed out that it would need access to the Defendant’s entire parking lot for a few days in the spring of 2025.8 The Plaintiff alleged that construction work on its building had to begin urgently on February 28, 2025.9 The Defendant objected to having to tolerate such a major disruption for an additional two (2) years, given that he had endured the inconveniences caused by the Plaintiff’s construction work for over four (4) years now, without being offered any form of compensation that would be considered fair or reasonable in the circumstances. On February 27, 2025, the Plaintiff brought anoriginating application before Justice Bonsaint, seeking orders for an interim interlocutory injunction, an interlocutory injunction and a permanent injunction, as well as for a declaration of abuse of process and damages, which was amended on February 28, 2025.10 At the interim interlocutory injunction stage, the Plaintiff asked the Court to issue a temporary order granting the Plaintiff access to the Defendant’s six (6) parking spaces so it could continue setting up its construction site.11 The Plaintiff also sought reimbursement of the professional fees incurred in applying for the injunction. The Plaintiff alleged that the hotel expansion was [TRANSLATION] “a large-scale project with costs in the tens of millions of dollars”.12 The Plaintiff further alleged that [TRANSLATION] “there is an urgent need for the construction work required to repurpose the building and turn it into a hotel to continue, without being interrupted by the Defendant’s actions”.13 The Plaintiff argued that halting construction work on its building would result in delays, significantly disrupting the timeline of the project, which was planned over the next two (2) years. Furthermore, it would lead to substantial additional costs associated with the various extras charged by the contractors it had hired to carry out the conversion and construction work.14 Needless to say, the Defendant opposed the application for an interim interlocutory injunction, arguing in particularthat the facts alleged by the Plaintiff failed to meet the urgency test.15 Those are the facts that Justice Bonsaint took into account when rendering her decision. The criteria for granting interim interlocutory injunctions In her judgment, Justice Bonsaint reviewed the legal principles governing interim interlocutory injunction applications. We will do the same below. The criteria for granting an interim interlocutory injunction are as follows: Urgency Serious issue to be tried or strong prima facie case Serious or irreparable harm Balance of convenience16 It is a discretionary and exceptional remedy that should only be granted sparingly and under strict conditions.17 The urgency criterion Urgency is [TRANSLATION] “of paramount importance”18 in determining whether an interim interlocutory injunction should be granted. If the urgency test is not met, the application simply cannot be allowed.19 Courts often describe the level of urgency required as being akin to [TRANSLATION] “a 9-1-1 emergency”.20 Interim interlocutory injunctions should only be granted in cases of [TRANSLATION] “extreme urgency”.21 For a court to find that the urgency test is met, the urgency must not result from a delay in bringing legal action. It must be [TRANSLATION] “immediate and apparent”—not the product of the plaintiff’s own lack of diligence.22 In other words, [TRANSLATION] “the alleged urgency must be real—not manufactured by the person asserting it”.23 Upon reviewing the case, Justice Bonsaint noted that the Defendant had been made aware only on January 31, 2025, that the Plaintiff would need access to his property for construction work.24 Prior to January 2025, the Plaintiff had not informed the Defendant of its true intentions regarding the work.25 It was not until February 14, 2025, that the Plaintiff officially informed the Defendant of the nature of the access required for the third phase of the project, namely, the use of at least half of the Defendant’s property from February 28, 2025, to March 31, 2027.26 Further to the Defendant’s contestation, Justice Bonsaint noted that the Plaintiff had known for several months that the third phase of the work would begin in early 2025.27 She found that the Plaintiff [TRANSLATION] “had not treated the issue of accessing the parking lot as one requiring urgent resolution”.28 The Plaintiff tried to justify its failure to be proactive, arguing that it had been unable to inform the Defendant of its space requirements before 2025 because the project timeline was still unknown at the time.29 However, Justice Bonsaint found that such explanations simply did not excuse the Plaintiff’s delay in filing its application for an interim interlocutory injunction against the Defendant.30 On the contrary, the supporting documents that the Plaintiff had submitted with its letter dated February 14, 2025, such as a plan of the Defendant’s parking lot and the preliminary project timeline, included references to “2024”.31 Given the above, Justice Bonsaint could only conclude that the Plaintiff had known for several months that construction work on its building was scheduled to begin in 2025.32 On that point, Justice Bonsaint was clear: [TRANSLATION] “The Court understands that preliminary construction timelines may be subject to change, but there is nothing to suggest that construction needed to begin ‘urgently’ on February 28, 2025. . . . the Plaintiff should have taken action as early as January 2025”.33 The Plaintiff had been aware of the access issues involving the Defendant’s property since the fall of 2024—and certainly since January 2025.34 Those issues should have prompted discussions between the Parties’ lawyers well before February 2025, and no later than January 2025.35 Discussions or attempts to settle the matter The Plaintiff also argued that, at the interim interlocutory injunction stage, discussions or attempts to settle the matter could have a bearing in determining whether the urgency requirement was met.36 Justice Bonsaint rejected that argument, given that no real negotiations had taken place, other than failed calls in November and December 2024, and again in January 2025, and that the Plaintiff had been aware of the access issues involving the Defendant’s property since the fall of 2024—and certainly since January 2025. Consequently, Justice Bonsaint dismissed the application for an interim interlocutory injunction, seeing as the Plaintiff had asked the Court to find that such an order, which would grant the Plaintiff access to half of the Defendant’s parking lot for two (2) years, needed to be issued urgently, even though the Plaintiff itself had not considered the need to access the parking lot as being an urgent matter to be resolved before the third phase of construction began.37 Key takeaways The urgency criterion is of paramount importance in determining whether an interim interlocutory injunction should be granted. That requirement must be met for the Court to allow such an application. In assessing the facts and allegations related to an application for an interim interlocutory injunction, the Court must ensure that the urgency is real—akin to a 9-1-1 situation—and not manufactured by the party seeking the relief. A delay attributable to the plaintiff cannot serve as a basis for granting an interim interlocutory injunction against the defendant. Half-hearted attempts at settlement discussions or negotiations do not excuse the delay between a party becoming aware of the facts warranting an interim interlocutory injunction and the filing of the application. Diligence is therefore essential in managing and mounting such cases, making it more likely that an interim interlocutory injunction will be granted. Entreprises de la Batterie inc. c. Biron, 2025 QCCS 608, paras. 1 and 10 (hereinafter the “Judgment”). Judgment, para. 4. Judgment, para. 10. Judgment, paras. 16 to 19. Judgment, paras. 10 to 18. Judgment, para. 27. Judgment, paras. 3 and 27. Judgment, para. 3. Judgment, para. 2. Judgment, para. 6. Judgment, para. 7. Judgment, para. 46. Judgment, para. 47. Judgment, para. 48. Judgment, para. 8. Judgment, paras. 35 and 37 to 39. Judgment, para. 36. Judgment, para. 41. Id. Judgment, paras. 41 and 43. Judgment, para. 42. Judgment, para. 42. Judgment, para. 40. Judgment, paras. 61 and 62. Judgment, para. 62. Judgment, paras. 64 and 65. Judgment, para. 68. Id. Judgment, para. 74. Judgment, para. 75. Judgment, paras. 76 and 77. Judgment, para. 82. Judgment, para. 82. Judgment, para. 84. Judgment, para. 85. Judgment, para. 83. Judgment, para. 90.

Read more
January 21, 2025

2024 Review of Real Estate Law Highlights in Quebec

As we keenly usher in 2025, we thought we would have a quick recap on changes affecting real estate law in Quebec in 2024. Let’s have a look back on the past year and on news deserving some attention and follow-up in 2025. This is not a comprehensive list, but a reminder that much has happened in the real estate sector. In terms of rental housing construction, the Real Property (GST/HST) Regulations introduced an enhanced GST rebate for residential rental properties, for construction beginning between September 14, 2023 and December 31, 2030, and whose end date is set no later than December 31, 2035. The procedure for authenticating a Canadian document to be used in a foreign country has been standardized for countries that are party to the Hague Apostille Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents. Bylaw 20-20-20 was amended to lighten the financial burden on real estate developers for the construction of affordable social housing in Montréal until the end of 2026. In terms of housing rental, the Act to limit lessors’ right of eviction and to enhance the protection of senior lessees has imposed a moratorium on the eviction of lessees by lessors who want to subdivide, expand or change the use of a dwelling, until June 2027, in addition to providing more protection for lessees aged 65 or over against eviction or repossession of a dwelling, when they have been living at the dwelling for at least 10 years and their income is equal or less than 125% of the income that would qualify them for low-rental housing based on applicable regulations. The Competition Act was amended to further regulate property controls, including the use of exclusivity clauses and restrictive covenants in existing commercial leases. The Competition Act was also amended to fight greenwashing. In the real estate industry, developers now have the burden to prove the environmental claims in respect to their properties. The increase in the inclusion rate for capital gains was announced in the federal budget in April 2024. The inclusion rate will go from 50% to 66.66% on all capital gains realized by corporations and trusts, in addition to individuals for the portion of capital gains exceeding $250,000 in a given year. Considering the potential change in government and the fact that these measures have no force of law, stay tuned for developments on this matter. Tax authorities plan to increase applicable withholding rates for the sale of a taxable Canadian property by a non-resident of Canada starting January 1, 2025. As a result, the withholding rates for disposals made as of that date have increased significantly further to the increase in the inclusion rate for capital gains. Again, there is, however, still uncertainty on whether this measure will come into force. Bill 86 amending, among other things, the Act respecting the preservation of agricultural land and agricultural activities and the Act respecting the acquisition of farm land by non-residents was tabled and introduced to the National Assembly of Quebec by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, André Lamontagne. The amendments aim, in particular, to control the acquisition of farm land and fight against the acquisition of farm land by foreign investors. Stay tuned for changes in this bill. The Act to amend various legislative provisions with respect to housing has “opened the door” for municipalities to authorize housing projects before February 21, 2027, that deviate from local planning bylaws, provided that established conditions are met. Municipalities have been granted discretionary power they can use to fast-track construction projects in 2025. Following this year full of developments in the real estate sector, our real estate law team is motivated and ready to answer all your questions and requests. Do you have any other topics in mind? Share them with us and feel free to contact us for a further discussion. Have a great 2025!

Read more
September 19, 2024

Financing Quebec’s Energy Transition: Unlocking the Potential of Flow-Through Shares

Quebec has set ambitious energy transition and industrial decarbonization targets. The shift to greener practices has to be taken in a context where our energy consumption could rapidly grow under the combined effect of a number of factors, such as the reindustrialization of our economy, population growth, transport electrification and the potential for artificial intelligence to consume vast amounts of energy. Investing in the development of energy infrastructure is therefore critically important, as an abundance of energy is key to economic prosperity. The problem is that public finances are already stretched to the limit with the need to renovate our aging infrastructure, among other things. Encouraging private equity investment is thus vital, and tax incentives can be very effective in this respect. The American example In 2022, the United States passed its Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), with the goal of stimulating investment in the renewable energy sector, in particular. More specifically, the IRA altered or created a number of tax credits to encourage private investment.1 Over the past two years, US businesses have announced a total of almost US$276 billion in new investments in clean energy generation and the capturing or elimination of carbon dioxide and other forms of industrial decarbonization, an increase of 34% on the two years previous.2 The IRA is effective in that it takes the respective situations of various energy sector stakeholders into account in a creative, flexible and pragmatic way, especially where taxation is involved. Energy project promoters often have to wait many years for their projects to generate income and profits, even though the banks and other investment funds they solicit financing from can be presumed to be operating profitable businesses. The tax losses that occur in the years during which such projects are designed and built are therefore of little interest to developers, but of immediate interest to investors. And so, a tax equity market has emerged, in which businesses subject to taxes can invest in the shares of entities set up to develop such projects so as to benefit from tax credits and faster depreciation. Typically, the entity that cashes in the investment and develops the project distributes 99% of income, losses and tax credits to investors until a predetermined return is achieved. Once that return is achieved, the investor’s share of the benefits decreases, and the developer has the option of buying out the investor’s residual share. The IRA has transformed how federal clean energy tax credits are monetized, and it is now possible to buy and sell such credits without having to make a long-term investment. For businesses, this new way of doing things is an additional and attractive way to participate in the growing tax credit market.3 In 2023, the volume of the tax equity market for American projects was around US$20 to 21 billion, up about US$18 billion from the previous year.4 It appears that the trend will continue. It is estimated that the value of the current market, which is particularly attractive to banks, is set to double to US$50 billion a year by 2025.5 The equivalent of flow-through shares The Quebec and Canadian tax deductions mechanism that most closely resembles the US tax equity market is probably flow-through shares. Through these, businesses in the mining and renewable energy sectors can transfer their mining exploration expenses and other expenses—specifically designated as eligible—to investors, who can then deduct them from their own taxable incomes.6 These businesses can thus issue shares at a higher price than they would receive for common shares to finance their exploration and development operations. Investors are willing to pay a higher price in return for the tax deductions afforded by the eligible expenses incurred by the issuing businesses, which can amount to a maximum of 120% of the equity invested in the shares.7 Investors can also claim a 15% or 30% federal tax credit. However, because tax incentives cannot be transferred, our mechanism is more rigid than the American one, and it can only be applied to mineral exploration and development expenses and certain specific expenditures related to renewable energy and energy conservation projects, such as electricity generation using renewable sources like wind, solar energy and geothermal energy.8 With ambition and innovation comes the need to take action Quebec could draw inspiration from the IRA to increase the attractiveness of flow-through shares and broaden their scope of application, thereby creating a new tool to finance the energy transition. The renewable energy sector is similar to the mining sector in many respects, not least in terms of the considerable amount of capital required to build the infrastructure needed to operate a mine or energy generation facility. The flow-through share mechanism, which is well-established and popular with investors,9 could be just as successful in our energy transition context. Making such incentives easier to transfer would also drive the emergence of a market similar to the US tax equity market. A number of Québec flagship companies, such as Hydro-Québec,10 Innergex11 and Boralex,12 are also very ambitious when it comes to developing large-scale energy projects. They face major financing challenges, as do those in the industrial decarbonization and infrastructure renewal sectors. Innovation is necessary to meet these challenges and make the transition to a more sustainable, but just as prosperous, world, and to do so in good time.13 Link Rhodium Group and MIT’s Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research (CEEPR), Clean Investment Monitor, link Brandon Hill, How to take advantage of tax credit transferability though the Inflation Reduction Act, Thomson Reuters Institute, April 16, 2024, link Allison Good, Renewables project finance to keep pace in 2024, but tax equity rule looms, S&P Global, January 12, 2024, link Lesley Hunter and Mason Vliet, The Risk Profile of Renewable Energy Tax Equity Investments, American Council on Renewable Energy, December 2023, link Link, page in French only Link Link Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada, Flow-through shares & the mineral exploration tax credit explained, link Link Link Link The authors would like to acknowledge the participation and the work done by Sophie Poirier in this publication

Read more