Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute centered on the liquidation of a dissolved housing cooperative and the role of Revenu Québec as official liquidator

• Legality of a judgment authorizing the sale of cooperative assets challenged by a former occupant

• Interpretation of article 18 of the Loi sur la liquidation des compagnies in context of involuntary dissolution

• Procedural irregularity raised concerning refusal to adjourn a prior court hearing

• Jurisdictional limitation on self-represented litigant acting on behalf of others under article 86 C.p.c.

• Appeal dismissed due to lack of serious grounds and failure to meet legal criteria for review

Facts and procedural background

The case concerns the dissolution and liquidation of the Coopérative d’habitation les 5 Continents, a housing cooperative established in February 1995 and dissolved by ministerial decree in May 2019 for violations of the Loi sur les coopératives. Following its dissolution, Revenu Québec was appointed liquidator of the cooperative’s assets, which included three residential buildings that housed approximately 35 low-income individuals and a daycare operated by Marie-Antoinette Mansaré.

Ms. Mansaré, who ran the daycare on the premises, became involved in a series of legal disputes surrounding the liquidation. In a recent Superior Court judgment, Revenu Québec was authorized to proceed with the sale of the cooperative’s assets. The judge also rejected a request to approve a resolution submitted by several cooperative members that sought to halt the liquidation process.

Legal arguments on appeal

Ms. Mansaré appealed the judgment, raising three main issues. First, she argued that the trial judge had erred by not applying article 18 of the Loi sur la liquidation des compagnies when reviewing the proposed resolution. However, the Court of Appeal found that article 18 was inapplicable in cases of involuntary dissolution, such as this one, where the cooperative was dissolved by government action.

Second, she challenged the decision to authorize the sale of the cooperative’s assets, but failed to demonstrate any manifest or determinative error by the trial judge. The Court found that the Superior Court’s analysis had followed relevant legal principles and was reasonable.

Lastly, Ms. Mansaré contended that the lower court had erred by denying a postponement of the hearing. The Court of Appeal determined this argument was inadmissible because it involved an interlocutory decision that required prior permission to appeal, which had not been obtained. Moreover, even if the issue had been properly raised, the decision fell within the trial judge’s discretion and was not reviewable in this context.

Court’s decision and outcome

The Court of Appeal emphasized that Ms. Mansaré, not being a lawyer and acting in her personal capacity, could not represent other members of the cooperative in court under article 86 of the Code de procédure civile. Her appeal was therefore considered valid only in relation to her individual interests.

Ultimately, the Court found that the appeal lacked any reasonable prospect of success. It granted Revenu Québec’s motion to dismiss the appeal under article 365 C.p.c., ordered Ms. Mansaré to pay legal costs, and affirmed the Superior Court’s decision in its entirety.