Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The respondents sought provisional execution of a Cour du Québec judgment to avoid immediate compliance with a TAMF decision.

• The court examined whether the respondents would suffer serious or irreparable prejudice if provisional execution was not granted.

• Evidence presented included a sworn declaration detailing economic, legal, and reputational harm.

• The AMF argued that the evidence did not establish sufficiently grave prejudice and emphasized public interest in enforcing securities regulation.

• The court considered the balance between the appellant’s right to appeal and the respondents’ right to benefit from a presumptively valid judgment.

• The court found the criteria for provisional execution under article 661 C.p.c. were satisfied.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and procedural history

The Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) appealed a judgment of the Cour du Québec that had suspended the provisional execution of a decision by the Tribunal administratif des marchés financiers (TAMF) against Jocelyn Grégoire and 9256-7619 Québec Inc., doing business as Cedma Finance. The TAMF decision, if enforced, would have required the respondents to cease their professional activities. The respondents appealed the TAMF decision to the Cour du Québec, which ordered suspension of its execution until the appeal was decided. The AMF was authorized to appeal this suspension to the Court of Appeal.

Application for provisional execution

The respondents requested the Court of Appeal to order provisional execution of the Cour du Québec’s judgment. They argued that without such an order, they would be forced to immediately comply with the TAMF decision, effectively ceasing their business activities for a minimum of about five months, until the appeal scheduled for January 30, 2026. They claimed this would result in serious consequences for their relationships with employees, landlord, and clients, as well as harm to their reputation and a risk of bankruptcy before the appeal could be decided.

Arguments and legal standards

The respondents supported their request with a sworn declaration by Mr. Grégoire, specifying the legal, economic, and reputational harms they would suffer. The AMF argued that the evidence did not demonstrate a sufficiently serious risk of prejudice to justify provisional execution and highlighted the public interest in ensuring compliance with securities regulations and TAMF decisions. The court considered article 661 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows for provisional execution if bringing an appeal is likely to cause serious or irreparable prejudice to a party. The court also referred to established jurisprudence on the exercise of this discretion.

Court’s analysis and decision

The court determined that the respondents’ evidence was sufficiently precise and uncontested, demonstrating serious and difficult-to-repair harm that was likely to occur in the short term if provisional execution was not granted. The court found that these harms were not hypothetical. The AMF did not convince the court that public interest considerations would outweigh the harm to the respondents. The court concluded that maintaining the balance between the appellant’s right to appeal and the respondents’ right to benefit from a presumptively valid judgment justified granting provisional execution.

Outcome

The court granted the respondents’ application for provisional execution of the Cour du Québec’s judgment during the appeal. No damages were awarded. The judgment stated that costs would follow the outcome of the appeal (“frais de justice à suivre le sort du pourvoi”). The decision permits the respondents to continue their business activities while the appeal is pending.