Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope of a third-party garnishee’s obligations under art. 717 C.p.c. when served with an execution notice in a small claims matter.
• Effect of an employer’s deliberate failure to declare, withhold and remit the garnishable portion of an employee’s wages after formal notification.
• Evidentiary weight of admissions by both the debtor and the employer confirming the employment relationship and receipt of the execution documents.
• Whether a third-party garnishee can avoid liability by characterizing the underlying debt as a purely “personal problem” of the employee.
• Threshold for converting a third-party’s non-compliance into personal liability “as if” it were the original judgment debtor.
• Consequences of ignoring court communications and refusing to participate in the hearing despite clear notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Facts of the case
Filippa Piro obtained a judgment in the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec against Mauro Colombo, relating to a personal debt that Colombo owed her. To enforce this judgment, she used the post-judgment enforcement mechanism available in small claims matters. On 11 July 2025, an “Avis d’exécution par le créancier d’un jugement en matière de recouvrement des petites créances” was notified to Imperma-Seal, the employer of the judgment debtor, Mauro Colombo. At the time of service of this execution notice, Colombo had been working seasonally for Imperma-Seal for many years and remained employed there. The notice of execution clearly explained that Imperma-Seal had 10 days from notification to make a declaration regarding amounts owed to Colombo and warned that, in case of default, the employer could be condemned to pay the amount due to the judgment creditor. Despite this, Imperma-Seal did not respond to the notice, did not file any declaration, and did not begin withholding the garnishable portion of Colombo’s wages. No sums were retained or deposited on behalf of Piro, even though Colombo continued to work there.

Procedural history and legal framework
Following Imperma-Seal’s silence, on 12 August 2025, Piro filed a “Demande de jugement contre la partie tierce-saisie en défaut” under article 717 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.p.c.), seeking to hold the employer personally liable as a defaulting third-party garnishee. The court clerk then sent Imperma-Seal a copy of this application together with a notice setting the matter for hearing on 17 December 2025. Article 717 C.p.c. provides the legal foundation for the application: a third-party garnishee who fails to declare, retain or deposit the seized sums, or who makes a false declaration, may be condemned to pay the amount due to the seizing creditor as if it were itself the debtor under the judgment. This judgment is therefore not about the original merits of the debt between Piro and Colombo but about post-judgment enforcement and the liability of a non-compliant third party in the context of small claims procedures.

Conduct of the third-party employer
Before the hearing, on 11 December 2025, Luigi Andreoli, owner of Imperma-Seal, sent a fax to the court registry. In this message, he identified himself as the owner of Imperma-Seal and stated that this was the first and last time he would contact the court about the case concerning Colombo. He asserted that Colombo’s “personal problems” did not concern the company, asked that no further documents be sent to Imperma-Seal about the file, and indicated that Colombo would no longer be part of the team as of 13 December 2025 until further notice. He also stated that Imperma-Seal would not attend the hearing scheduled for 17 December. At the hearing, Piro and Colombo appeared, but Andreoli did not. The documentary record was already sufficient in the court’s view, and oral testimony from Piro and Colombo confirmed the employment relationship and the fact that no wage garnishment had been implemented. Colombo admitted that he worked seasonally for Imperma-Seal and that he was employed there when the notice of execution was served on 11 July 2025.

Evidence and admissions before the court
During the hearing, given that Andreoli’s fax expressly invited the court to contact him for any further questions, the judge telephoned him directly from the courtroom and heard his testimony. Andreoli acknowledged receiving both the notice of execution and the later application for judgment against the third-party garnishee. He also confirmed that Colombo was indeed his employee. However, Andreoli explained that he had not read or considered the documents because he attached no importance to them, even though he understood that they related to a loan or debt between Piro and Colombo. He indicated that he did not consider his employees’ private lives to be any of his business and refused to be involved. He went further, stating that he would not pay anything in the event of a condemnation and that he would contest any judgment entered against him. The court noted in particular his crude remark encapsulating his position: “I don’t give a shit.” This evidentiary record established not just a technical omission but a conscious and deliberate decision by Andreoli, doing business as Imperma-Seal, to ignore the notice of execution and to refuse to comply with his obligations as third-party garnishee.

Court’s reasoning and outcome
On the basis of the documents, the testimony of Piro and Colombo, and Andreoli’s own admissions, the Court of Québec concluded that the statutory conditions of article 717 C.p.c. were met. Imperma-Seal had been properly notified of the notice of execution and later of the application for judgment, knew of the underlying judgment against Colombo, and acknowledged that Colombo was its employee. Yet no declaration was filed, no garnishable portion of Colombo’s income was withheld or remitted, and Andreoli overtly chose to disregard the enforcement process. In these circumstances, the law required that the non-compliant third-party garnishee be personally condemned. The court therefore ordered that Luigi Andreoli, doing business as Imperma-Seal, be condemned to pay to Filippa Piro the amount owed to her under the judgment previously rendered against Mauro Colombo, as if Andreoli himself were the judgment debtor, together with court costs against him. The judgment, however, does not specify the exact monetary amount of the original small claims judgment or the precise quantum of costs. As a result, while it is clear that Piro is the successful party and that Andreoli/Imperma-Seal has been ordered to pay her the full sum owed by Colombo plus legal costs, the total amount of the monetary award and costs cannot be determined from this decision alone.