Asbestos Corporation: no leave to appeal for the U.S. law firms

On November 2, 2026, Justice Simon Ruel of the Court of Appeal of Québec, deciding the application alone, denied with costs the U.S. law firms' application for leave to appeal the Superior Court's September 9 judgment, 2026 QCCS 3277, per the Judgment, 2026 QCCA 1449, Nov. 2, 2026, paras. 1, 20 & n. 1. In that judgment Justice Jean-François Émond had declared that the firms lack sufficient interest to participate in the CCAA proceedings of Asbestos Corporation Limited, and declared null and invalid the notices of representation Bennett Jones had filed for them, per the Judgment of Sept. 9, 2026 (certified translation), paras. 44, 46. The application for leave was heard on October 22. Applying the four cumulative criteria for leave to appeal in a CCAA matter, Justice Ruel found that "none of these criteria is satisfied" [translation], per the Judgment, 2026 QCCA 1449, paras. 10–11 & p. 8. The decision is on leave alone; no appeal was heard.

In the judgment's own account, ACL is "a mining company facing claims by thousands of individuals who allege that they are victims of asbestos-related diseases." It and its insurers, defined as CLMI, jointly sought relief under the CCAA, and "[t]hrough this restructuring process, ACL and CLMI are attempting to resolve the claims asserted by the claimants" [translation]. The applicants, the judgment says, "are 17 U.S. law firms that represent more than 115,000 claimants." The firms "participate in the proceedings in their own names, in place of their clients," and are represented in Canada by Bennett Jones. "None of the claimants has participated in the proceedings in their own name" [translation], per the Judgment, 2026 QCCA 1449, paras. 1–3. The September 9 judgment was reported here on September 10.

Who applied for leave

The style of cause, Dean Omar Branham Shirley v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, lists ten applicants under the designation "Asbestos claimants": Dean Omar Branham Shirley LLP; Brayton Purcell LLP; Bevan and Associates, LPA, Inc.; Early, Lucarelli, Sweeney & Meisenkothen, LLC; Grunda Walsh LLP; Landry & Swarr, LLC; Lipsitz, Ponterio & Comerford LLC; Simmons Hanly Conroy LLP; The Lanier Law Firm, P.C.; and Zamler, Shiffman & Karfis P.C., per the Judgment, 2026 QCCA 1449, p. 2. The reasons, citing paragraph 7 of the judgment under review, count 17 firms, per para. 3 & n. 4. The monitor, Raymond Chabot Inc., in its report of October 16, described the September 9 judgment as having declared null the notices filed by Bennett Jones "in respect of the fifteen (15) U.S. law firms listed in the Representation Judgment," per the Eighth Report of the Monitor, Oct. 16, 2026, para. 2.44.3.

The application for leave was filed on September 29. The monitor describes it as brought by "the CCAA Opposition Parties, through Bennett Jones," per the Eighth Report, para. 2.47; ACL and CLMI, in their application of October 14, describe it as filed by "Bennett Jones, acting on behalf of the U.S. Law Firms," per the Co-Applicants' Application to Extend the Stay, Oct. 14, 2026, para. 61.

Paragraph 45

The applicants relied primarily, the reasons say, on one conclusion of the September 9 judgment, which Justice Ruel reproduces: "[45] DECLARES that the U.S. law firms designated as the Asbestos Claimants cannot act as mandataries for the Potential Claimants for the purpose of appointing Bennett Jones s.e.n.c.r.l., s.r.l. to represent them in these CCAA proceedings". They argued that the judgment causes irreparable harm to the claimants by prohibiting the firms from appointing Bennett Jones to represent them in Canada, "thereby leaving more than 115,000 English-speaking claimants residing in the United States and suffering from various health conditions without representation in the CCAA proceedings" [translation], per the Judgment, 2026 QCCA 1449, paras. 7–8. They also contended, the reasons record, that Justice Émond erred in interpreting Bennett Jones's representation as exercised on behalf of the firms rather than the claimants, failed to consider the paramountcy of the CCAA, and "improperly exercised his discretion by elevating form over substance" [translation], per para. 9.

Leave, the judgment says, "must be obtained under section 13 of the CCAA" and "is subject to a stringent analytical framework." It quotes the Supreme Court of Canada in 9354-9186 Québec inc. v. Callidus Capital Corp., 2020 SCC 10: "A high degree of deference is owed to discretionary decisions made by judges supervising CCAA proceedings." Leave is "therefore generally granted only sparingly," and four cumulative criteria must be met: whether the issue is of significance to the practice; whether it is significant to the proceeding itself; whether the appeal appears, on its face, to have merit or is frivolous; and whether it "will unduly hinder the progress of the proceeding" [translation], per para. 10 & nn. 15–18. Among the authorities given for the four criteria is Forman v. Asbestos Corporation Limited, 2025 QCCA 1229, an earlier refusal of leave to appeal in this proceeding, per the same judgment, n. 18 and the Court of Appeal judgment of Aug. 18, 2026 (certified translation), n. 2.

On significance to the proceeding, the applicants contended that the judgment "prohibits Bennett Jones from receiving instructions from duly authorized U.S. attorneys who possess the information and experience needed to assert asbestos-related claims effectively for the claimants' benefit." Justice Ruel answered that "the judgment under review is clear," quoting its statement that the conclusion on the firms' legal interest "in no way calls into question the fact that the mandates conferred on BJ originate from U.S. law firms acting on behalf of more than 115,000 Potential Claimants, rather than from the Claimants themselves" [translation], per paras. 12–13.