Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The defendant sought retraction of a default judgment ordering payment of $58,009.22 in unpaid commercial rent.

• Failure to respond to the original proceedings and non-attendance at the hearing were central to the default judgment.

• The defendant argued that the lease was never enforceable due to a fire affecting the leased premises.

• No sufficient documentary evidence was provided to support the alleged lease termination or rent payments.

• The court emphasized that negligence, not surprise or fraud, caused the defendant’s procedural default.

• The retraction request was ruled untimely, and no serious defence was established to challenge the judgment.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background of the dispute

Caisse Desjardins du Centre-Nord de Montréal filed a legal claim on June 22, 2023, against Corporation immobilière Wolf R.E.D., seeking unpaid commercial rent totaling $59,830.90. The defendant was a tenant in a commercial space owned by Société en commandite 8694 St-Denis, over which the plaintiff held a hypothec. The Caisse, asserting its hypothecary rights, issued a notice withdrawing the landlord’s authority to collect rents and demanded payment directly from the tenant. Despite being served, the defendant failed to respond or appear, resulting in a default judgment on March 13, 2025.

Procedural developments

Following the judgment, the Caisse undertook enforcement procedures, including serving a subpoena for post-judgment examination and a request for documentation. These were ignored, prompting the plaintiff to initiate contempt proceedings. In response, the defendant filed a motion for retraction of the judgment, claiming its president had attempted to delay the March 12, 2025 hearing due to counsel's unavailability, but received no response from the plaintiff’s counsel. Nonetheless, neither the defendant nor its representative appeared in court on the hearing date, despite a formal summons.

Legal issues in the retraction motion

The court assessed the retraction motion under Articles 346 and 347 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which require proof that the default was caused by fraud, surprise, or another sufficient cause, and that the request for retraction was made within a strict thirty-day time frame. The court found that the defendant was properly served, knew of the proceedings, and had no valid excuse for its absence. Additionally, the defendant failed to demonstrate a serious defence, merely asserting that the lease had not come into force due to a fire, but offering no documentation to support this claim.

Outcome of the case

The court concluded that the request for retraction was both untimely and unsubstantiated. The defendant had ample opportunity to participate in the proceedings but failed to act with diligence. There was no evidence of fraud, surprise, or any other justifying circumstance. Moreover, the defence raised lacked specificity and supporting evidence. As a result, the motion to retract the judgment was rejected, and the original judgment in favor of the Caisse—ordering payment of $58,009.22, interest at 24% per annum from May 27, 2023, and legal costs—remained in effect.