Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The lender sought authorization to repossess a vehicle sold under an installment sales contract.

• Defendants defaulted on multiple weekly payments totaling several months, breaching contract terms.

• Plaintiff demonstrated compliance with the Consumer Protection Act by sending proper notices of repossession.

• Over half the total obligation had been paid, requiring court approval under Article 142 of the Act.

• Defendants failed to appear in court and provided no evidence of ability or intent to remedy the default.

• The court granted repossession, finding the plaintiff met all statutory and evidentiary requirements.

Facts of the contract and default

Toyota Crédit Canada Inc. filed an application under Article 142 of Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act and Article 527 of the Code of Civil Procedure to repossess a 2020 Toyota Tacoma. The vehicle had been sold to defendants Claude Patoine and Anne-Renée Bellemare under an installment sales contract dated September 4, 2020. The contract was assigned to the plaintiff the same day. The agreed total obligation was $64,640.11, to be paid in equal weekly installments of $193.55.

Despite fulfilling a significant portion of the contract, the defendants fell into default on June 12, 2023. Payments due between December 2024 and April 2025 were missed. Additionally, the defendants still owed $157.15 on an earlier installment from December 13, 2024. Notices of repossession were sent on January 23, 2025, and delivery was confirmed in late January and early February.

Procedural compliance and statutory obligations

Under the Consumer Protection Act, where more than half the total price has been paid, a lender must obtain court authorization to repossess the item. This includes filing a formal request and satisfying criteria under Article 109 of the Act, which asks the court to consider the total amount due, payments made, the value of the property at the time of default, the remaining balance, the consumer’s ability to pay, and reasons for default.

The plaintiff’s evidence showed a balance of $28,190.52 still owing and no payments made after multiple missed due dates. One defendant, Anne-Renée Bellemare, voluntarily signed a document relinquishing the vehicle. However, Claude Patoine did not return the vehicle nor offer any explanation or proposal to resolve the debt.

Hearing and court’s analysis

The matter was scheduled for hearing on June 30, 2025. Despite proper service of documents and notices, the defendants failed to appear. The court reviewed all documentation, including the affidavit and default notices, and concluded that the lender had complied fully with procedural requirements.

The court emphasized that it is up to the consumers to demonstrate their willingness and ability to cure the default or offer alternative payment terms. Since no such evidence was presented, and the plaintiff had satisfied the burden of proof, the court authorized the repossession.

Outcome and final order

The court granted the application and authorized Toyota Crédit Canada Inc. to repossess the 2020 Toyota Tacoma. No legal costs were awarded. The judgment reinforces that repossession under the Consumer Protection Act requires strict procedural compliance and gives consumers the opportunity—but also the responsibility—to present a viable alternative when in default.