Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Allegations of a fraudulent asset transfer triggered a court-authorized seizure before judgment to secure potential recovery.

• The applicant challenged the seizure, arguing insufficient and misleading evidence in the supporting affidavit.

• Involvement of a third party previously accused (but not convicted) of real estate fraud raised suspicion but did not violate presumption of innocence.

• Dispute centered on whether rectification of the seizure order altered its substance beyond judicial authority.

• The applicant failed to demonstrate any legal principle, new question, or injustice warranting appellate intervention.

• Court emphasized that leave to appeal in seizure matters is exceptional and demands a clear legal or procedural error.

Facts of the case

Mario Levesque sought leave to appeal a Québec Superior Court decision that upheld a seizure before judgment of certain real estate assets linked to him. The underlying dispute involves a civil claim filed by Dany Lafortune, who is suing Levesque for over $18 million. During the course of litigation, Lafortune discovered that Levesque had sold all of his income-generating real estate to a numbered company (9501-7182 Québec inc.) for $7.9 million. The sale involved a $4.2 million balance due to Levesque secured by a mortgage. Shortly afterward, the same properties were resold by 9501 to another numbered company (9517-7382 Québec inc.) at a significantly higher price of $12.28 million, with the latter assuming the mortgage rather than paying it directly.

Lafortune also became aware that these transactions involved an individual named Benoît Charron, who had recently been arrested and accused—though not convicted—of participating in a $20 million real estate fraud scheme. Charron's connection to the corporate entities, particularly through his spouse and direct financial involvement, led Lafortune to allege that Levesque was attempting to shield his assets in anticipation of a potential judgment. On this basis, the Superior Court authorized a seizure before judgment of Levesque’s rights in the transactions. The judgment was later rectified to reflect that actual seizure of the debt owed to Levesque would need to be carried out by third-party garnishment, not through the original order.

Levesque applied to annul the seizure, claiming that the underlying affidavit contained false and vague allegations and that the judge lacked the power to materially alter the nature of the order through rectification. When the trial court rejected that challenge, he sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Court's analysis and findings

The Québec Court of Appeal denied the motion. It found no error in the trial judge’s reasoning, particularly regarding the credibility and weight of the circumstantial evidence. The judge had not improperly conflated Charron’s legal personality with that of the companies, but reasonably noted Charron’s role in the transactions and his financial involvement as relevant context. The appellate judge held that there was no violation of the presumption of innocence, as civil courts are allowed to consider objective concerns even in the absence of criminal conviction.

As for the rectification of the original seizure order, the Court acknowledged that this procedural issue might ordinarily merit consideration. However, it concluded that since the same result could have been achieved through a fresh application using the same evidence, the appellant suffered no prejudice.

Final outcome

The Court emphasized that leave to appeal in cases involving seizures before judgment is reserved for exceptional situations, such as when a question of legal principle or conflicting jurisprudence arises, or where there is a clear injustice. None of those thresholds were met in this case. As a result, the request for permission to appeal was rejected, with costs awarded against Levesque.