Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Defendant sought to retract a default judgment awarding over $58,000 to the plaintiff, alleging surprise and lack of proper notice.

• The court determined the defendant had been properly served and failed to act diligently, undermining claims of surprise or justification.

• Defendant's failure to appear at the March 2025 hearing, despite clear notice and communication, was central to the court’s rejection.

• Arguments regarding payment and termination of the lease due to fire were dismissed due to lack of supporting evidence.

• The defendant failed to meet the procedural deadline to file the retraction, making the application inadmissible.

• The original judgment stood, with full costs and high interest awarded against the defendant.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and procedural history

In June 2023, Caisse Desjardins du Centre-Nord de Montréal filed a claim against 9342-9720 Québec inc., seeking payment of commercial lease arrears. The plaintiff alleged that it held a hypothecary claim over the leased premises and that the defendant failed to pay rent for a commercial property from April 2020 to May 2023. The claim followed a formal notice revoking the landlord’s authority to collect rents. The defendant was properly served but failed to respond to the court proceedings.

After failed attempts to proceed through the special clerk, the plaintiff sought and obtained a default judgment on March 13, 2025. The defendant, through its president, was aware of the hearing date and had even requested a postponement, stating that counsel was unavailable. However, neither the defendant nor its counsel appeared at the hearing, and the court proceeded in their absence.

The motion for retraction and evidentiary assessment

Following the default judgment, the defendant was served with post-judgment procedures in April and May 2025. It eventually filed a motion to retract the judgment, claiming it had not been given a fair chance to defend itself due to its lawyer's absence abroad. The court analyzed whether the delay and non-appearance resulted from fraud, surprise, or any other sufficient cause under articles 346 and 347 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the defendant was properly informed of the hearing and failed to act with reasonable diligence. It noted that the defendant did not follow up on its request for postponement and ignored warnings in the formal summons that failing to appear could result in adverse consequences, including enforcement actions.

The court's reasoning and outcome

The court emphasized that procedural neglect and voluntary inaction cannot support a motion for retraction. It also scrutinized the substantive defense raised—that the lease was not enforceable due to a fire—and found it insufficient and unsupported by documentary evidence. The court highlighted that the original judgment only concerned the period before the fire and that repeated requests for proof of payment had gone unanswered.

Moreover, the motion for retraction was filed outside the strict thirty-day limit following the defendant's confirmed knowledge of the judgment in April 2025. This procedural lapse alone justified dismissal.

Final judgment and consequences

The court rejected the defendant’s motion for retraction. The original judgment remained intact, requiring the defendant to pay $58,009.22, plus 24% annual interest from May 27, 2023, and court costs. The court also scheduled a follow-up hearing in September 2025 concerning potential contempt proceedings against the defendant’s representative for prior non-compliance.

In sum, the plaintiff prevailed, and the defendant’s attempt to overturn the judgment failed both procedurally and substantively.