Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiff sought prejudgment seizure of defendant’s bank accounts based on fear of non-recovery due to potential bankruptcy.

• Defendant challenged the seizure, claiming there was no objective risk and that her statements were made emotionally.

• The court examined whether the plaintiff had a prima facie basis to fear loss of the debt without this extraordinary remedy.

• Testimony and sworn declarations included allegations that the defendant intended to declare bankruptcy if sued.

• Financial activity revealed substantial unexplained withdrawals from defendant’s accounts over a short period.

• The court found the plaintiff’s concerns legitimate and maintained the seizure as procedurally justified.

Facts and procedural background

The dispute involves a financial conflict between Doris Lapointe and Cindy Morin. In March 2025, Morin and her then-partner Patrick Émond signed a promissory note for $80,000, borrowed from Lapointe. The loan became due on June 26, 2025, and was not repaid. Lapointe later learned that Morin had transferred a property to a third party and offered to repay only half the debt in exchange for a full release, asserting Émond was responsible for the other half.

Concerned about the recoverability of his loan, Lapointe applied for and was granted a prejudgment seizure of Morin’s bank accounts without notifying her, as permitted under Québec civil procedure. The seizure targeted multiple accounts across financial institutions. Morin responded by filing a motion to annul the seizure, arguing that the allegations lacked substance and that her financial situation did not objectively threaten the debt’s recovery.

Evidentiary foundation and judicial analysis

The court reviewed the affidavits submitted in support of the seizure, including statements from Émond and another individual, Steve Waters. These indicated that Morin had expressed her intent to file for bankruptcy if legal action was taken against her. Notably, Émond described conversations with Morin following their separation where she purportedly said she had gone through bankruptcy twice before and would do so again to avoid legal fees and civil litigation.

The court acknowledged the emotional context of these remarks but found that the plaintiff had demonstrated a serious and objective concern. Financial records showed that Morin’s account balances dropped from approximately $190,000 in April to about $70,000 in May, without explanation. Though Morin denied intending to file for bankruptcy, the unexplained depletion of funds raised reasonable doubt about her financial stability.

Additionally, the court noted that Lapointe’s decision not to include Émond in the lawsuit, despite his co-signature on the loan, was procedurally unusual but not decisive at this stage.

Judgment and outcome

The court refused to annul the prejudgment seizure. It concluded that Lapointe met the legal threshold of establishing a credible risk to the recovery of the debt. The seizure, although restrictive, was found to be proportionate and legally supported under the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the court took note of Lapointe’s agreement to release one of the seized accounts containing $29,128.08 and recognized that another account, belonging to Morin’s business, had not been seized.

In summary, the court upheld the plaintiff’s prejudgment remedy, dismissing the defendant’s challenge and allowing the seizure to remain in effect pending resolution of the underlying claim.