Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Bombardier sought leave to appeal a case management order restructuring the hearing of two joined commercial cases.

• The Superior Court had modified the prior joinder to allow the first case to proceed independently due to procedural and confidentiality complexities.

• Delastek’s amended claim involved Airbus entities, raising issues of intellectual property ownership tied to a transferred contract.

• Bombardier argued it was denied procedural fairness and claimed the judge acted without giving them a full opportunity to respond.

• The Court of Appeal found the management order reasonable and within the judge’s discretionary powers under the Code of Civil Procedure.

• Leave to appeal was denied, as Bombardier failed to demonstrate serious prejudice or manifest procedural unfairness

.

Facts of the case

The litigation stems from two related commercial disputes between Bombardier Inc. and Delastek Inc., a manufacturer of aircraft parts. The first lawsuit (No. 500-17-116661-219) was initiated by Delastek in 2021. It claimed approximately $2 million in retroactive pricing adjustments under the CSeries contract and nearly $9 million in compensation for the alleged misappropriation of its intellectual property following Bombardier’s partial termination of the contract. Bombardier later notified Delastek that the rights and obligations under the CSeries contract had been assigned to Airbus Atlantique Canada SL Inc. effective February 2020, with the aircraft program rebranded as the A220.

In November 2021, Bombardier filed a separate lawsuit against Delastek under a different contract—the Global program—alleging contractual breaches that caused damages of nearly $3.7 million (No. 500-17-119003-211). Bombardier later filed a counterclaim in the CSeries action for over $1 million in related damages.

Due to overlapping factual and legal issues, Bombardier successfully obtained an order in December 2022 to join the two cases so they could be heard together on the same evidence. However, in 2023, Airbus terminated the remainder of the A220 contract, prompting Delastek to amend its original lawsuit to assert full ownership of the intellectual property involved and to request forced intervention by Airbus entities.

Procedural history and motion judge’s ruling

The trial judge allowed Delastek’s amendments and granted forced intervention by Airbus and its affiliate, Société en commandite Airbus Canada. Bombardier and Airbus opposed this on the grounds that the Airbus entities had no stake in the second case and their inclusion would cause undue procedural complexity and confidentiality issues, given the commercial rivalry between Airbus and Bombardier.

To resolve the conflict, the judge modified the original joinder order. He ruled that the two lawsuits would remain technically joined but proceed sequentially: the first (the CSeries/A220 case) would be heard and decided first with the Airbus entities involved; the second (the Global contract case) would proceed later, without Airbus’s participation and with strict procedural boundaries to avoid crossover of evidence and filings.

Bombardier applied for leave to appeal, arguing that this reconfiguration of the case structure was unreasonable, caused prejudice, and was made without giving Bombardier a proper chance to respond to the proposed changes—a violation of the audi alteram partem principle.

Outcome at the Court of Appeal

Justice Judith Harvie of the Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed Bombardier’s motion for leave. She held that the judge’s decision was a proper exercise of his broad case management powers under articles 32 and 158 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order was tailored to the unique procedural and commercial complexities of the dispute, and did not deprive Bombardier of any substantive rights.

While acknowledging that full consultation on the procedural change would have been preferable, the Court found that the parties—including Bombardier—had been aware of the judge’s intentions and had the opportunity to comment. The judge’s approach was found to be proportionate, aimed at preventing duplicative proceedings, and consistent with the principles of fairness and judicial efficiency.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal denied Bombardier’s request for leave to appeal, ruling that the case management order was reasonable and did not warrant appellate intervention. The decision reinforces judicial discretion in managing complex, multi-party commercial litigation—especially where overlapping issues of contract interpretation, intellectual property, and confidentiality are at play. The Court also emphasized that only clear and serious procedural unfairness will justify disrupting such management orders.