Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute over an unregistered 2012 sale of land between Abdallah Ali Jawad and Zhi Zhou.

• Plaintiff sought homologation of a document titled “Agreement of Sale” as a legal transaction.

• Alternatively, plaintiff claimed $20,000 based on unjust enrichment due to a donation of the land to a third party.

• The court examined whether the “Agreement of Sale” satisfied the legal definition of a transaction under Quebec civil law.

• Plaintiff’s failure to register the sale or act on his rights contributed to the court rejecting his claims.

• The court also found the claim prescribed under the applicable three-year limitation period.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and parties involved

Abdallah Ali Jawad brought an action against Zhi Zhou concerning a lot of land originally transferred to her in 2012 through a deed in payment from Gestion Phoenicia inc. Although Ms. Zhou signed an “Agreement of Sale” on December 19, 2012, purporting to sell the same lot to Mr. Jawad for $20,000, that sale was never registered in the land registry. In 2016, Ms. Zhou donated the lot to her spouse, Jing Hong Bian, and that act was duly registered. Mr. Jawad later initiated proceedings in 2025 seeking recognition of the 2012 agreement as a legal transaction. He also included a claim for unjust enrichment in the alternative, requesting reimbursement of the $20,000. Haissam Karhani was involved as a third party and provided a sworn statement supporting Mr. Jawad’s account.

Nature of the claims and legal arguments

Mr. Jawad’s main claim was to have the “Agreement of Sale” judicially homologated as a valid transaction under article 2631 of the Civil Code of Québec. He relied on sworn declarations and references to a prior judgment, El Sewify c. Gestion Phoenicia inc., to support the context of the agreement. He argued that the agreement was part of a strategy to protect the property amid ongoing litigation, indicating that the transfer to Ms. Zhou was temporary. Alternatively, he sought to recover $20,000 under unjust enrichment principles.

The court’s analysis of the alleged transaction

The court found that the “Agreement of Sale” did not qualify as a legal transaction. It did not reference any existing or potential dispute, nor did it involve reciprocal concessions or the resolution of litigation, which are required elements for a transaction under Quebec law. The evidence presented, including the declarations and references to the El Sewify case, lacked relevance or legal weight in establishing the necessary legal criteria. The agreement was viewed as a standard sale document with no attributes of a transaction.

Assessment of unjust enrichment claim

On the alternative claim, the court found no unjust enrichment. It held that any financial transfer made to Ms. Zhou was either justified by the legal strategy the parties had agreed on or by Mr. Jawad’s own failure to register the sale or assert his rights earlier. The court noted that he knowingly accepted the risk that the property remained in Ms. Zhou’s name and that he did not act to publish the sale deed in the land registry. Moreover, any claim for unjust enrichment was found to be time-barred under the three-year prescription period, which began in 2012.

Judgment and conclusion

The court dismissed all of Mr. Jawad’s claims. It rejected the request to homologate the agreement as a transaction and found no legal basis for unjust enrichment. Additionally, the court determined that the claim was prescribed. Court costs were awarded against Mr. Jawad.