Contribution to the Development of Law
Throughout her career, Me. Sophie-Anne Décarie has contributed, through her practice, to the development of Quebec case law. Decisions rendered in several cases in which she participated continue to be cited by courts and in legal scholarship, particularly in the areas of class actions, fundamental rights, real estate law, construction law and civil procedure.
Beyond the outcomes achieved for the parties she represented, these cases have helped clarify certain rules of law and shed light on their practical application.
Atchom Makoma v. Attorney General of Quebec, 2019 QCCS 3583, 2025 QCCS 1646
The Context
Me. Décarie represented the plaintiff, Benoît Atchom Makoma, in this class action involving a group of approximately 24,000 people who allegedly did not appear before a judge within the constitutionally prescribed 24-hour period following their arrest.
The action was brought against the Attorney General of Quebec and the Cities of Quebec City and Montreal.
Me. Décarie’s Contribution
Me. Décarie initiated the class action through her Gatineau law firm and obtained the judgment authorizing the proceeding in 2019.
Following the COVID-19 pandemic, she assembled a team of lawyers with recognized expertise in class actions, particularly with respect to the preparation of expert evidence, the readiness of the case for trial and trial preparation.
Throughout the proceeding, she managed relations with the Fonds d’aide aux actions collectives, the representative of the group, Mr. Makoma, and the class members. She was responsible, among other things, for client communications, follow-up with class members and the coordination of various administrative aspects of the case.
She also participated in strategic decisions, negotiations that led to settlements with the Cities of Quebec City and Montreal, the preparation of the case for trial and the preparation of the appeal factum.
Following the settlement reached with the City of Quebec City, Me. Décarie personally coordinated its implementation, including communications with class members, verification of their eligibility, processing of claims and distribution of compensation.
Legal Contribution
The 2019 authorization judgment constitutes a reference in class actions involving fundamental rights and public authority liability.
The 2025 judgment on the merits found violations of rights guaranteed by the Canadian and Quebec Charters and awarded more than $164 million in collective compensation.
The case also contributes to clarifying the State’s obligations regarding the organization of court appearances and compliance with the constitutional 24-hour deadline.
Partial Settlements
City of Quebec City
A settlement agreement of nearly $500,000 was reached with the City of Quebec City. The settlement initially covered 120 eligible class members.
Me. Décarie coordinated its implementation, including communications with class members, verification of their eligibility and distribution of compensation.
City of Montreal
A $4.3 million settlement agreement was also approved by the Superior Court.
It provided for a collective recovery mechanism while preserving the class members’ claims against the Attorney General of Quebec.
Impact
The 2019 authorization judgment has been cited in 12 judicial decisions from various courts, in addition to subsequent decisions in the Makoma case. It is also referenced in the 2020, 2021 and 2022 editions of Code de procédure civile du Québec : jurisprudence et doctrine, under articles 572 and 575 C.C.P.
The 2025 judgment on the merits has already been cited in 6 judicial decisions.
Beyond its jurisprudential influence and the compensation awarded, the case contributed to changes in practices surrounding court appearances in Quebec. The evidence presented at trial demonstrated that changes were made to allow appearances on Sundays and statutory holidays and to better ensure compliance with the constitutional 24-hour deadline.
Practical Significance
This case illustrates the role that a class action can play in protecting fundamental rights, both through compensation for affected individuals and through changes to institutional practices.
3223701 Canada Inc. v. Darkallah, 2018 QCCA 937
The Context
Me. Décarie represented a purchaser in a dispute with 3223701 Canada Inc., a company affiliated with the Brigil group, following the sale of a new residence affected by significant defects, including the presence of pyrite.
The case raised the issue of the coexistence between the arbitration mechanism provided under the Guarantee Plan for New Residential Buildings and judicial remedies based on the legal warranty of quality.
Me. Décarie’s Contribution
Me. Décarie obtained the annulment of the sale, an exceptional remedy resulting in the rescission of the contract, the return of the property to the seller and reimbursement of the purchase price to the buyer.
Legal Contribution
In this decision, the Court of Appeal clarified the relationship between the Guarantee Plan for New Residential Buildings, the arbitration process provided under that regime and remedies available under ordinary law.
It confirmed, in particular, that resorting to arbitration does not automatically prevent a party from bringing a separate judicial action when the legal grounds, relief sought or damages claimed differ.
The decision thus helps clarify the possible coexistence of complementary remedies and the limits of res judicata in this context.
Impact
The decision has been cited in 117 judicial decisions from various courts and in 20 legal publications.
The judgment remains an important reference in real estate law, construction law, warranty of quality and arbitration relating to the Guarantee Plan for New Residential Buildings.
Practical Significance
This decision continues to guide practitioners called upon to determine the remedies available following an arbitration decision rendered under the Guarantee Plan.
Gestion Architectonic Inc. v. Ibrahim, 2021 QCCA 1538
The Context
Me. Décarie represented the plaintiffs at first instance in a complex dispute concerning the existence of a right of way providing access to their property.
The case raised issues relating to the interpretation of property titles, servitudes, landlocked properties, acquisitive prescription and the analysis of land title evidence.
Me. Décarie’s Contribution
Me. Décarie handled the preparation and presentation of the evidence at first instance and represented her clients throughout the litigation. She also argued the case before the Quebec Court of Appeal.
This mandate required an in-depth analysis of chains of title, cadastral history, occupation of the property and the rules applicable to real rights in immovable property.
Legal Contribution
In this decision, the Court of Appeal reiterated the principles applicable to the interpretation of property titles, the determination of real rights in immovable property and the assessment of land title evidence.
It also clarified the rules governing servitudes, rights of way and situations involving landlocked properties.
Impact
The decision has been cited in 11 judicial decisions, including a Court of Appeal decision, Petosa v. Aoun, 2022 QCCA 840, and 10 Superior Court decisions.
The judgment remains an important reference concerning servitudes, rights of way, landlocked properties, acquisitive prescription and the interpretation of property titles.
Practical Significance
This judgment provides a reference tool for practitioners called upon to analyze real rights in immovable property, interpret property titles or advise clients in disputes relating to access to a property.
Nowacki v. Domaine Baie Mud IOPHO Inc., 2012 QCCS 5005
The Context
Me. Décarie participated in this complex real estate dispute involving acquisitive prescription, real rights in immovable property and abuse of rights.
Legal Contribution
The decision clarifies the conditions required to acquire a right through acquisitive prescription, as well as the limits on the exercise of ownership rights when such exercise constitutes an abuse of rights.
It is also cited with respect to certain evidentiary rules applicable to real rights in immovable property.
Impact
The decision has been cited in 2 judicial decisions and 12 legal publications.
It is specifically discussed in the annotated Civil Code of Québec, under articles 998 and 2870 C.C.Q.
The decision remains a reference concerning acquisitive prescription, abuse of rights and evidence applicable to real rights in immovable property.
Practical Significance
This decision provides useful guidance in disputes involving acquisitive prescription and the limits on the exercise of ownership rights.
Foley v. Côté, 2012 QCCA 157
The Context
Me. Décarie represented the respondents, Guylaine Côté and Denis Bouchard, in this dispute concerning the sale of a residential property, allegations of latent defects and remedies arising from the legal warranty of quality.
Me. Décarie’s Contribution
Me. Décarie represented the respondents before the Court of Appeal in proceedings concerning the assessment of the evidence, the sellers’ obligations and the assessment of damages claimed by the purchasers.
Legal Contribution
In this decision, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the principles applicable to proving latent defects, assessing evidence in real estate transactions and determining damages that may result from a defect affecting an immovable property.
The decision contributes to the analysis of the respective obligations of sellers and purchasers with respect to the legal warranty of quality.
Impact
The decision has been cited in 14 judicial decisions and one legal publication.
The judgment remains an important reference concerning real estate sales, the legal warranty of quality, latent defects and contractual liability.
Practical Significance
This judgment provides guidance to practitioners advising purchasers and sellers regarding the proof of latent defects, the assessment of damages and remedies arising from the legal warranty of quality.
Paluck v. Jémus, 2011 QCCS 2448
The Context
Me. Décarie represented the plaintiffs and argued this real estate dispute concerning acquisitive prescription and the determination of property boundaries.
The case raised issues relating to useful possession, the exercise of real rights in immovable property and the assessment of evidence in matters of prescription.
Me. Décarie’s Contribution
Me. Décarie prepared and presented the evidence aimed at establishing the elements of useful possession and her clients’ rights in the property at issue.
The mandate required, among other things, an analysis of the titles, the historical occupation of the property and evidence relating to property boundaries.
Legal Contribution
The decision recalls the essential conditions required to acquire ownership of property through acquisitive prescription.
It clarifies the criteria for useful possession, which must be peaceful, continuous, public and unequivocal, as well as the evidence required to establish its existence.
It also contributes to the interpretation of the rules applicable when titles, occupation of the property and property boundaries are disputed.
Impact
The decision has been cited in 3 judicial decisions, including a Court of Appeal decision, Petosa v. Aoun, 2022 QCCA 840.
It remains a useful reference concerning acquisitive prescription, useful possession and real rights in immovable property.
Practical Significance
This decision provides guidance to practitioners advising clients in disputes involving acquisitive prescription, proof of useful possession, neighbour disputes and the determination of property boundaries.