Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute centered on the validity of a legal hypothec registered without the property owner’s authorization.

• Defendant failed to retain legal counsel despite multiple notices, resulting in a default judgment.

• Plaintiff provided uncontested sworn evidence denying any contract with the defendant.

• No legal action or notice of exercise was filed by the defendant within the six-month deadline under Article 3061 C.C.Q.

• The court ruled the hypothec invalid as no work had been commissioned or authorized by the plaintiff.

• Claim for punitive damages was denied due to insufficient evidence regarding alleged misconduct.

Facts and procedural background

Alexandra Pouget filed a legal action against Groupe Duclos Inc. (GDI) seeking the cancellation of a legal hypothec registered against her property in Montréal. The hypothec, recorded on December 21, 2023, was allegedly linked to construction or renovation work. Pouget, however, stated that she had never contracted GDI for any such services.

After initial procedural steps, including a case management conference in August 2024 and a scheduled settlement conference for March 2025, GDI's lawyers withdrew in October 2024. The court notified GDI of the requirement to appoint new legal representation, as corporations must be represented by counsel. GDI failed to comply, prompting Pouget to request default judgment.

At the March 2025 settlement conference, GDI's representative, Mr. André Lacroix, appeared without counsel. The court advised him that GDI’s failure to retain a lawyer could justify a default ruling. The matter was then transferred to a special clerk for decision.

Outcome and legal reasoning

The court found that GDI had no legal basis for registering the hypothec. The plaintiff’s unchallenged affidavit confirmed no construction contract existed between her and GDI. Moreover, over six months had passed since the registration without GDI filing a legal claim or a notice of exercise, as required by Article 3061 of the Civil Code of Québec. This lapse reinforced the illegitimacy of the hypothec.

As a result, the court ordered the cancellation of the hypothec inscription. Additionally, it awarded Pouget $3,239.05 to cover legal expenses directly linked to the improper hypothec, representing three invoices from her attorneys. However, the claim for punitive damages was dismissed. The evidence failed to identify the recipient or context of an email central to the claim, especially in light of parallel litigation pending before the Superior Court involving another party.

The judgment conclusively favored Alexandra Pouget, confirming the hypothec's cancellation and partial compensation for her legal costs.