Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• A law firm successfully challenged a default judgment by demonstrating it was prevented from defending itself due to negligence of its former legal counsel and administrative procedural errors
• Tension between two competing legal principles: the fundamental right to be heard versus the need for finality and stability of court judgments
• Critical oversight involved a failure to pay a court stamp on legal documents, triggering an incomplete file notice that went unaddressed through proper courtesies or communication
• Former counsel failed to inform the defendant of key procedural notices including the incomplete file status and the default judgment inscription, leaving the client unaware of the legal proceedings
• The court found the defendant had clearly demonstrated intent to contest the claims through multiple representations, a signed protocol with the opposing party, a summary of defenses, and a joint inscription request
• Valid defenses existed and were not contested by the plaintiff, establishing sufficient grounds for retraction of the default judgment

Background and procedural context

The Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CNESST) initiated legal action against Rochefort et Associés, avocats SENC (Rochefort), a law firm, on May 19, 2023, seeking recovery of $17,754.17 on behalf of an employee named Judith Guillen. Rochefort filed a notice of representation on June 5, 2023, clearly signaling its intention to contest the claim. Over the following months, several procedural steps occurred, including the filing of an instance protocol signed by both parties, a case management hearing, a disqualification motion, the filing of a subsequent representation act by Me Coté avocats inc. on behalf of Rochefort, and a summary of defense grounds.

The procedural breakdown leading to default judgment

The underlying issue that triggered the series of events resulted from Rochefort's failure to pay a court stamp on its legal documents. When the documents were not stamped, they were never returned to Rochefort's counsel and remained in the court file. This administrative oversight generated a notice of incomplete file to the defendant for failing to file a response to the service. On September 25, 2024, the CNESST filed a motion for default inscription for hearing and default judgment for failure to respond to the service. Notably, CNESST took no step to contact Rochefort's counsel regarding this procedural issue, despite the established protocols and courtesies typically extended in civil litigation.

Breakdown in attorney-client communication

A significant dispute had developed between Rochefort and its legal representative, Me Coté avocats inc., due to multiple errors committed by that firm in managing the files. On November 27, 2024, Me Coté avocats inc. filed a notice of intention to cease representation for Rochefort. Following this departure, Rochefort experienced substantial difficulties in transferring its files. Critically, Me Coté did not inform Rochefort of the incomplete file notice, nor of the default judgment inscription. Rochefort received no cooperation from its former counsel during the transition. Based on the last procedural step Rochefort was aware of—a joint inscription request for hearing and judgment—Rochefort reasonably expected to receive a summons for a merits hearing. On March 25, 2025, a default judgment was rendered against Rochefort by the special clerk, Me Catalin Curia.

The retraction motion and court analysis

Rochefort learned of the judgment on July 15, 2025, and immediately took action. On July 16, 2025, Me Daniel Rochefort drafted and signed a motion for retraction of judgment. He was scheduled to leave the country on July 18, 2025. He instructed his assistant to notify the retraction motion to the plaintiff. The notification was made through the CNESST's general portal ("TED"), and a confirmation of receipt was obtained and attached to the retraction motion and filed with the court. The motion was presentable on August 20, 2025, but no representative from CNESST appeared, and the special clerk noted on the hearing report that the motion was dismissed due to alleged absence of proof of notification. However, the confirmation of receipt was actually attached to the motion. The court examined two fundamental but competing principles: first, the natural right of every party to be heard, derived from the common law principle of "audi alteram partem"; and second, the stability of judgments, which seeks to provide judicial authority and bring closure to litigious situations to ensure legal certainty. The court noted that the conduct of the parties and their attorneys plays an important role in evaluating the grounds supporting a motion for retraction of judgment. When a judgment is obtained through subterfuge despite knowing the defending party wishes to contest the claim, retraction will be permitted if the default results from a misunderstanding or error caused by the attorney. However, the plaintiff's attorney must strictly respect the rules of the Code of Civil Procedure, including obligations of collaboration and courtesy.

Evidence of intent to defend

The facts of this case strongly demonstrated that Rochefort clearly intended to contest CNESST's claim. Two notices of representation were filed in the record; a protocol signed by both parties was filed; case management hearings took place between the parties; a summary of defense grounds was filed; and a joint inscription request for hearing and judgment was filed. Additionally, there were at least two other files pending between the parties (involving Mme Guillen) and the attorneys on record. Three files were pending before the Administrative Labour Tribunal between Mme Guillen and Rochefort at the time of the default inscription. Despite all these facts demonstrating clear contestation of the claim, CNESST filed a default motion without attempting to discuss the procedural issue with Rochefort's counsel as a matter of courtesy.

Court conclusion

The court found it implausible that Rochefort would deliberately choose not to take necessary steps to obtain a merits hearing and allow CNESST to obtain a default judgment when Rochefort had repeatedly and clearly demonstrated its intention to contest CNESST's demands and those of its client, Mme Guillen. The court concluded that Rochefort had respected the strict timelines required under Article 347 of the Code of Civil Procedure for filing a retraction motion. Even if the initial notification had not been valid, the court would have relieved Rochefort of the obligation to respect those timelines given the particular circumstances of the case. The defendant demonstrated to the court's satisfaction that it was in a situation of impossibility to act within the prescribed timeline due to the negligence of its former counsel. The court found that Rochefort had discharged its burden of proof, establishing at first sight that it had been prevented from defending itself by surprise and for sufficient cause permitting acceptance of its retraction motion.

Outcome and relief granted

The court declared the grounds invoked by Rochefort sufficient to accept its motion for retraction of judgment. The court suspended execution of the default judgment rendered on March 25, 2025, ordered the continuation of the proceedings, and required the parties to put the file in order within 45 days, including the filing of a new joint inscription request for hearing and judgment if necessary. The court ordered the clerk to set a hearing date according to the most recent joint inscription request filed in the record. Importantly, the court awarded no new monetary judgment in this decision, as the proceeding was remitted for a full merits hearing. The parties were awarded the benefit of proceeding without costs of justice.