Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Whether GDI Services (Québec) S.E.C. met the legal threshold for retraction of a default judgment under Québec civil procedure.

• Assessment of communication failures between counsel and their impact on the procedural fairness of the default judgment.

• Evaluation of whether the defendant’s delay was due to negligence or an honest, excusable error.

• Determination of whether the defendant presented a serious and arguable defense on the merits.

• Balancing the principle of finality of judgments with the fundamental right to be heard.

• Application of relevant jurisprudence confirming that honest mistakes can justify judgment retraction in appropriate cases.

Facts and procedural background

In Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail v. GDI Services (Québec), 2025 QCCQ 1284, the CNESST brought a claim on behalf of an employee who alleged she had not received a portion of a bonus owed prior to her resignation. GDI Services (Québec) S.E.C. contested the claim during the administrative process, arguing that all amounts due had been paid.

Prior to legal proceedings, GDI’s lead counsel discussed the matter with CNESST’s coordinating lawyer, who committed to notifying the litigator assigned to the file to contact GDI’s counsel before filing suit—offering a last chance to resolve the matter. However, this internal message never reached the litigation counsel, and proceedings were filed and served without further communication.

The claim was served at GDI’s head office, but in the absence of the regular receptionist, it was received by another staff member and mistakenly set aside. The file was lost, and GDI never responded to the suit. A default judgment was granted in July 2024. In December 2024, GDI learned of the judgment after enforcement began and promptly filed a motion for retraction.

Legal principles and analysis

The court reviewed the law on retraction of judgment under the Code de procédure civile, guided by well-established jurisprudence. Retraction is a remedy that allows a party to reopen a final judgment in exceptional circumstances, particularly where the right to be heard may have been compromised by a genuine, non-negligent error.

The Court noted that procedural errors—such as miscommunication among lawyers or administrative oversights—may justify retraction where they result in a party being deprived of the opportunity to defend. The Court stressed that a sincere and non-negligent mistake is not fatal if a serious defense exists.

In this case, the Court found that:

• There was a bona fide expectation on GDI’s part that communication would occur before any lawsuit was filed.

• The failure to respond to the claim was the result of an unfortunate clerical mishap, not gross negligence.

• GDI had a serious defense: the claim concerned an alleged bonus, and the facts required analysis of the employment contract and correspondence.

The Court accepted that GDI’s delay was based on an excusable misunderstanding and administrative failure. The guiding jurisprudence (e.g., Groupe JSV inc. v. Goal Capital inc., Location Accès Crédit inc. v. Proulx) supported allowing retraction in cases of honest mistakes paired with substantive defenses.

Final judgment and outcome

The Court granted the motion for retraction. It:

• Revoked the July 16, 2024 default judgment.

• Authorized the original claim to proceed on the merits.

• Ordered procedural steps for the CNESST to refile its notice and for GDI to submit its defense.

• Reserved costs pending the outcome of the underlying litigation.

This decision underscores that Québec courts prioritize the right to be heard over strict procedural formality, particularly where good faith and a real defense are demonstrated.