Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope and effect of a safeguard order extending a prior provisional injunction requiring the franchisee and its principal to surrender possession of the franchised café premises to the franchisor.
• Threshold for leave to appeal a safeguard order under article 31 C.p.c., including whether the order decides part of the dispute or causes irreparable prejudice and the requirement for “exceptional” circumstances.
• Dispute over the identification of the leased premises, including whether the order and its execution targeted the correct commercial unit despite a change in the shopping centre’s designation.
• Assessment of whether the Superior Court judge exercised her discretion judicially and without an apparent error when she rejected the tenant’s arguments on the “wrong premises” issue.
• Consideration of proportionality, efficient use of judicial resources, and the tight timetable already set for a rapid hearing of the interlocutory injunction on the merits.
• Determination that the safeguard order merely continues a time-limited provisional measure, does not resolve the merits or cause irreparable harm, and thus does not justify appellate intervention, resulting in dismissal of the leave application with costs.

Facts and procedural background

The dispute arises from a franchise and sublease relationship between SC Coffee Canada Inc. (operating under the Foodtastic banner) and 9366-6121 Québec inc. (“9366”), a company controlled by Hoda (also spelled Holda) Elfara. Under this business arrangement, SC Coffee Canada acted both as franchisor and as sub-landlord, granting 9366 the right to operate a branded café in commercial premises within a shopping centre and to occupy the premises under a sublease. Ms. Elfara was the president and majority shareholder of 9366. Over time, the relationship deteriorated. SC Coffee Canada claimed that substantial amounts were owed under the franchise and sublease arrangements and initiated proceedings in the Superior Court of Québec seeking both injunctive relief and recovery of a significant monetary claim. In its civil action, SC Coffee Canada alleged that 9366 and Ms. Elfara were jointly and severally liable (“solidairement”) for more than $343,000 in unpaid sums arising from the franchise and sublease agreements. At the same time, SC Coffee Canada took steps to terminate both the franchise agreement and the sublease, treating the contractual relationship as at an end and demanding that the franchisee and its principal vacate the premises. According to the franchisor, 9366 nonetheless refused to leave and continued to operate the café through Ms. Elfara. Faced with this ongoing occupation, SC Coffee Canada sought urgent relief in the form of a provisional injunction to regain control of the premises. On 14 November 2025, the Superior Court issued a provisional injunction order. That order required 9366 and Ms. Elfara, in her capacity as president and majority shareholder of the company, to restore possession of the subleased premises to SC Coffee Canada. This had the practical effect of obliging the franchisee and Ms. Elfara to vacate the café location on an interim basis. Once the injunction was executed, 9366 and Ms. Elfara left the premises, and SC Coffee Canada took back physical possession and resumed control of the site. The matter did not end with the initial provisional order. SC Coffee Canada then sought a safeguard order to maintain the status quo pending a hearing of its interlocutory injunction application. On 24 November 2025, the Superior Court, per the Honourable Justice Janet Michelin, issued a safeguard order extending the effect of the provisional injunction until 23 December 2025. This safeguard order ensured that SC Coffee Canada would remain in possession of the premises while the interlocutory injunction application moved forward on an expedited timetable. An important factual issue emerged at this stage regarding the identification of the premises. Ms. Elfara argued that the injunction and safeguard order covered the wrong commercial space—what she characterized as an “invented” unit that did not correspond to the actual leased premises—and also that the order purported to relate to a unit whose lease had already been terminated. She claimed that the enforcement of the order had been carried out at a location not covered by the underlying lease. Justice Michelin rejected that argument. In her reasons, she noted that the court was satisfied the correct premises had been targeted and that any change in the shopping centre’s designation or naming of the unit did not alter the reality that the injunction related to the same commercial space that had been subject to the franchise and sublease. She further imposed a tight timetable for filing written materials so that the interlocutory injunction application could be heard quickly. This context framed the subsequent appellate proceedings.

The application for leave to appeal and stay before the Court of Appeal

Unhappy with the safeguard order and its impact on possession of the premises, Ms. Elfara, acting without counsel, applied to the Québec Court of Appeal for permission (leave) to appeal Justice Michelin’s safeguard order and for a stay of its execution pending appeal. The appellate proceeding was heard on 8 December 2025 by the Honourable Justice Judith Harvie, sitting as a single judge of the Court of Appeal. Procedurally, several clarifications were made at the outset of the hearing. An interpreter was allowed to assist Ms. Elfara by telephone (but not to address the court directly, as the interpreter had not been formally announced as participating in the hearing). Ahmad Elfara, another individual associated with the matter, was present but not properly a party in first instance. After exchanges between the court, counsel for SC Coffee Canada and the individuals involved, the Court of Appeal recorded that he had not been validly impleaded and ordered that he be removed from the case at the appellate level. By consent of all parties, the company 9366-6121 Québec inc. was added as a mise en cause in the appeal given its status as co-defendant in the Superior Court action and the fact that Ms. Elfara was its president and shareholder. The hearing then turned to the substance of the leave application. Ms. Elfara maintained that the safeguard order concerned a commercial unit she described as “invented,” unconnected with the actual sublease, and alternatively a unit whose lease had already been brought to an end. She contended that the Superior Court judge had refused to hear her arguments properly and that the order was therefore flawed. SC Coffee Canada, represented by counsel, opposed the application. The respondent characterized the motion as a disguised attempt to challenge the merits of the safeguard order rather than a genuine application meeting the stringent criteria for leave to appeal an interlocutory order. Counsel argued that any challenge to the factual and legal basis of the order should instead be advanced in the upcoming interlocutory injunction hearing in the Superior Court, in accordance with the expedited schedule already set down. SC Coffee Canada emphasized that the Superior Court judge had already considered and rejected the premises-identification argument, finding that the correct premises were at issue. The respondent submitted that the safeguard order did not finally determine any part of the merits of the dispute and did not cause irreparable harm, but rather extended a time-limited interim measure pending a full hearing. From their perspective, the statutory and jurisprudential thresholds for appellate intervention in such interim orders were not met.

Legal framework for leave to appeal a safeguard order

In deciding the application, Justice Harvie began from the established principle that leave to appeal a safeguard order is granted only in exceptional circumstances. Under article 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an interlocutory judgment of this nature may be appealed with leave if it either decides part of the dispute or causes irreparable prejudice to a party, taking into account the overall interests of justice and the guiding principles of civil procedure. The case law of the Court of Appeal, including decisions such as Lavoie v. Maltais and Dyer v. Villa Châteauneuf inc., underscores that these criteria are to be applied strictly and that safeguard orders are discretionary measures. Appellate review focuses on whether the judge exercised that discretion judicially and without a manifest and determinative error. A party seeking leave typically must demonstrate an apparent weakness in the judgment itself along with the urgent necessity of avoiding serious prejudice. Against this background, Justice Harvie evaluated whether the arguments advanced by Ms. Elfara met the demanding threshold for appellate intervention.

Analysis of the issues and evidentiary contentions

Justice Harvie concluded that Ms. Elfara had not demonstrated that the statutory and jurisprudential criteria for granting leave were satisfied. The central point advanced in the leave application—that the safeguard order concerned “invented” premises or a unit no longer covered by a lease—had already been examined and rejected by Justice Michelin. The Superior Court judge had specifically found that the right premises were involved, while noting that the way the shopping centre designated or named the unit might have changed. On the record before the Court of Appeal, there was no apparent weakness in that reasoning. Justice Harvie found that the applicant failed to identify any palpable and overriding error in the trial judge’s treatment of the premises-identification issue. Rather than pointing to a clear legal or factual error that would justify leave, Ms. Elfara was essentially seeking to re-argue the same point already considered in first instance. Justice Harvie also considered the nature and effect of the safeguard order itself. The order did not create a new permanent regime or decide an essential part of the merits; it simply extended, for a limited period up to 23 December 2025, a provisional injunction already issued on 14 November 2025. The order maintained SC Coffee Canada in possession of the premises while the interlocutory injunction application would be heard on an expedited basis. In that context, the Court of Appeal found no urgency that would justify overriding the ordinary course of first-instance proceedings. The safeguard order was explicitly time-limited, and the timetable imposed by Justice Michelin allowed for a rapid hearing where Ms. Elfara could raise her substantive defences and seek to overturn the interim relief. Justice Harvie stressed that the interests of justice, and the principles of proportionality and efficient judicial resource management, favoured allowing the case to proceed expeditiously before the Superior Court rather than interrupting the process with an appeal on an interim order. Any broader evidentiary disputes—including questions about the precise identification of the premises, the status of the lease, and the parties’ respective performance of contractual obligations—could be properly aired and adjudicated at the interlocutory injunction hearing and, in due course, on the merits of the underlying action. The judgment does not discuss any specific written “policy terms” in the sense of insurance or other formal policy clauses. Instead, it refers more generally to the franchise and sublease agreements and to the fact that SC Coffee Canada had purported to terminate them, prompting litigation over both possession of the premises and the substantial monetary claim. The actual clauses of those contracts are not reproduced or analysed in detail in the appellate decision; the focus is on interim relief and the standards governing appellate review of safeguard orders.

Outcome and consequences

Having considered the parties’ submissions and the legal framework, Justice Harvie refused to grant leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the criteria for exceptional intervention in respect of a safeguard order were not met: the order did not decide any part of the substantive dispute, did not cause irreparable prejudice, and did not exhibit any apparent error warranting appellate correction. Because the safeguard order merely extended the existing provisional injunction for a short, defined period and the Superior Court had already set a compressed schedule for the interlocutory injunction hearing, there was no compelling reason to disturb the interim status quo. As a result, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the related request for a stay of execution of the safeguard order was declared moot. The judgment was rendered “avec frais,” meaning that costs of the leave application were awarded against Ms. Elfara in favour of SC Coffee Canada. However, the decision does not specify a dollar amount for those costs, which are thus left to be determined according to the usual tariff and assessment processes. The underlying monetary claim of more than $343,000 asserted by SC Coffee Canada against 9366 and Ms. Elfara remains unadjudicated at this stage; the Court of Appeal does not award damages or pronounce on the merits of that claim in this decision. In this appellate outcome, SC Coffee Canada Inc. (Foodtastic) is the successful party, as the Court of Appeal rejects Ms. Elfara’s application for leave to appeal and her request for a stay, awards costs against her, and leaves the safeguard order in place, with the total amount of costs and any eventual damages or monetary award not yet determined in this decision.