Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Motion for retraction of a default judgment based on alleged inability to defend due to counsel changes and personal vulnerability.

• Enforcement of a mortgage loan, including a claim for repayment and judicial sale of the mortgaged property.

• Assessment of whether the defendant’s circumstances (age, vulnerability, lack of understanding) justified retraction of judgment.

• Evaluation of the sufficiency and seriousness of the defendant’s defenses and allegations of abusive lending.

• Determination of compliance with procedural requirements under the Code of Civil Procedure for retraction.

• Decision on whether any costs or damages should be awarded in connection with the retraction motion.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and procedural history

Banque Toronto-Dominion filed a claim against Thérèse Vaillancourt on September 27, 2024, seeking repayment of a mortgage loan in the amount of $66,844.10 and the forced surrender of the property securing the loan. The bank’s claim was based on a series of mortgage agreements dating back to 2007, with renewals in 2012 and 2022. After defaulting on the loan, Vaillancourt was served with a pre-notice of the bank’s intention to exercise its hypothecary rights, including judicial sale of the property.

Despite being served, Vaillancourt did not file a defense within the required timeframes, in part due to the successive departures of her legal counsel. The court ultimately rendered a default judgment on June 12, 2025, ordering Vaillancourt to pay the bank the claimed amount and to surrender the property within ninety days.

Motion for retraction and arguments

Following the default judgment, Vaillancourt, now represented by new counsel, filed a motion for retraction of judgment. She argued that her inability to defend herself was due to her age, vulnerability, lack of understanding of the legal process, and the repeated withdrawal of her lawyers. She also raised issues of alleged abusive lending practices by the bank and claimed she was not properly informed of her options or the terms of the contract.

The bank opposed the motion, asserting that the legal requirements for retraction were not met and that the defenses raised were not serious or substantiated.

Court’s analysis and decision

The court examined whether the circumstances justified setting aside the default judgment. It found that the reasons given by Vaillancourt, including her search for financing and the changes in legal representation, did not constitute sufficient grounds for retraction under the Code of Civil Procedure. The court also noted that the defenses raised were general and unsupported by specific facts or evidence.

Allegations regarding abusive lending and lack of proper information were deemed too vague and lacking in detail to be considered serious defenses. The court concluded that the principle of finality and stability of judgments should prevail in this case.

Outcome and costs

The court dismissed Vaillancourt’s motion for retraction of judgment, maintaining the original order requiring her to pay $66,844.10 to Banque Toronto-Dominion and to surrender the property. No additional costs were awarded in connection with the retraction motion, with each party bearing their own costs for this stage.