Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Central issue concerned whether the Louinel Joseph targeted by wage garnishment was the same “Louinel Joseph” condemned by the Tribunal administratif du logement in the prior rental judgment.
• Evidence of Joseph’s continuous residence at another Montreal address, supported by the concierge, insurer and Revenu Québec records, undermined any link between him and the Place Phillips lease.
• Discrepancies in language use, contact details, pay stubs and employment attestations showed that an unknown fraudster had usurped Joseph’s identity to obtain the lease and misled the landlord and broker.
• The court held that execution measures and seizure in the hands of a third party can only lawfully target the property of the actual judgment debtor, not an innocent third party sharing the same name.
• Timeliness of the opposition to seizure was addressed, with the court extending the non-rigorous statutory delay to prevent a serious and manifest injustice to Joseph.
• The opposition to seizure was granted, the third-party garnishment annulled, and enforcement of the rental judgment stayed as against Joseph, with no monetary award or costs granted in his favour.

Background and parties

This case arises out of an identity fraud scenario that intersected with residential tenancy law and the enforcement of judgments in Quebec. The underlying landlord–tenant dispute was adjudicated by the Tribunal administratif du logement (TAL) in 2025, and the subsequent enforcement effort led to a 2026 judgment of the Court of Québec (civil division) on an opposition to seizure. The main protagonists are James Continelli, a landlord and creditor armed with a TAL judgment, and Louinel Joseph, a temporary foreign worker whose identity was appropriated by a fraudster. Hector Larivée inc., Joseph’s employer, appeared in the proceedings as the third party (tiers saisi) holding his wages subject to a seizure in the hands of a third party. A bailiff, Kevin Cardazzi, was also involved as the enforcement officer and was named as a mis en cause in connection with the execution process.

Facts regarding Mr. Joseph’s presence in Canada and residence

Mr. Joseph is originally from Haiti and arrived in Canada on 21 June 2023 as a temporary worker. On arrival, he lived briefly in a dwelling on Ontario Street in Montréal. On 1 August 2023, he signed a French-language lease for a dwelling on a different Montréal street (redacted in the judgment), where the landlord was identified as Ms. Judelande Magloire. He continued to reside there at the time of the Court of Québec hearing. His account of continuous residence at that address from August 2023 was corroborated by the building’s concierge and by documentary evidence from his insurer and from Revenu Québec, all tying him to that same address.

The landlord–tenant dispute before the Tribunal administratif du logement

Separately, Mr. Continelli owned a condominium unit in a building located at Place Phillips in Montréal. In early 2025, he instructed his real estate broker, John Pinto, to find a tenant for this condominium. A person presenting himself as “Louinel Joseph” contacted Mr. Pinto and expressed interest in renting the unit. In the process, Mr. Pinto requested identity documents, including a driver’s licence, and obtained a credit report in the name of this “Louinel Joseph.” An English-language residential lease was then electronically signed on 22 and 23 February 2025 for the Place Phillips unit. The tenant’s address given in that lease was on avenue de Champchevrier in Anjou, an address which, according to the real Mr. Joseph, belongs to his uncle who helped arrange his arrival in Canada but where he himself never resided. The first month’s rent was paid in cash to Mr. Pinto, while subsequent rent payments were made electronically from an account identified under the name “Lou Joseph.”

The tenant defaulted on rent as of July 2025. Mr. Continelli brought an application before the Tribunal administratif du logement seeking termination of the lease, expulsion of the tenant and payment of arrears and related amounts. The tenant did not appear at the TAL hearing. On 23 September 2025, in Continelli c. Joseph, 2025 QCTAL 34292, the TAL terminated the lease, ordered the expulsion of the tenant and all occupants, and condemned “the tenant” to pay $2,100 plus interest at the legal rate, the additional indemnity under article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec from 8 July 2025 on $550 and from the due dates of each rent instalment on the balance, together with $90 in fees and a $26 notification charge under the tariff. Although the judgment used the name “Louinel Joseph,” no one disputed that the proceeding was properly constituted and that the landlord was dealing, in good faith, with the person who had identified himself under that name.

Enforcement steps and the third-party seizure of wages

Following the TAL judgment, bailiff Kevin Cardazzi initiated enforcement measures. On 30 October 2025, he signed an initial notice of execution referring to the TAL decision and listing the Place Phillips address for the tenant, but that first notice did not detail the specific monetary sums due, instead referencing the expulsion aspect. On 14 November 2025, he signed a modified notice of execution that again used the Place Phillips address, but now specified that $2,963.61 was owed further to the 23 September 2025 TAL decision and named Hector Larivée inc. (Joseph’s employer) as the third party (tiers saisi). This established a seizure in the hands of a third party targeting Joseph’s wages.

On 20 November 2025, the modified notice of execution was served by bailiff at Joseph’s place of work by leaving a sealed copy with the receptionist. The reasons note that, strictly speaking, in execution matters the Code of Civil Procedure requires service by bailiff, and service should normally be made personally or at the domicile or residence of the intended recipient; however, the court ultimately did not decide whether the work-place delivery to a receptionist was itself fatal, since a more fundamental irregularity was decisive. Joseph only learned of the seizure on 4 December 2025, when Nathalie Desbiens, coordinator of payroll and benefits at Hector Larivée inc., informed him that his salary would be subject to a deduction. The same day, Ms. Desbiens prepared and signed a third-party declaration confirming that Joseph was an employee and specifying his hourly wage and weekly hours. Joseph then promptly consulted a lawyer. After the bailiff was notified by email that Joseph was not the person against whom the TAL decision had been rendered, an opposition to seizure was served and filed on 23 December 2025. In early January 2026, Mr. Joseph also reported the identity theft and fraud to the police.

Key evidentiary elements distinguishing the real Joseph from the fraudulent tenant

The Court of Québec undertook a detailed factual analysis to determine whether Mr. Joseph was in fact the debtor under the TAL judgment. It concluded unequivocally that he was not the tenant of the Place Phillips unit. Several evidentiary strands were central:

• Mr. Joseph’s own testimony: He stated clearly that he never rented the Place Phillips condominium and had lived since 1 August 2023 at the other Montréal address under a lease with Ms. Magloire. The court expressly found no reason to doubt his credibility or the reliability of his account.
• Corroborating residence evidence: Testimony from the building concierge and documents from his insurer and from Revenu Québec all confirmed that his address since August 2023 was the same non–Place Phillips address identified in his lease, not any address related to the Place Phillips property.
• Broker’s equivocal identification: When he testified, broker John Pinto did not categorically identify Joseph as the person he had met in connection with the Place Phillips rental. He said only that the person resembled Joseph, which fell short of a firm identification capable of tying Joseph to that lease.
• Inaccurate background information from the Place Phillips tenant: In a 20 February 2025 email to Mr. Pinto, the Place Phillips tenant stated that his landlord until 28 February was one “M. Pierre Octivus.” That was demonstrably false if it referred to Joseph, since Joseph, at that time, was already residing in the other building under his lease with Ms. Magloire.
• Language disparities: The Place Phillips lease and the tenant’s emails to Pinto were drafted in English. Joseph testified he speaks only French and Creole. This linguistic mismatch supported the conclusion that he was not the person who negotiated and signed the English documentation.
• Different contact details: The telephone numbers and email addresses of Joseph and the Place Phillips tenant did not match, further distancing him from the fraudulent tenant identity.
• Fraudulent pay stubs and fabricated employment documentation: Pay statements provided by the Place Phillips tenant to Mr. Pinto, ostensibly from Hector Larivée inc., did not match the genuine pay records issued by that employer and filed in evidence by Ms. Desbiens. The court found that someone had created fake pay stubs by copying and manipulating real information derived from Joseph’s actual employment. Additionally, the employment attestation furnished to Pinto was signed in the name “Danilo Rabeau,” purporting to be a payroll and benefits coordinator at Hector Larivée inc. In reality, that role was held by Ms. Desbiens, and there was no employee by the name of “Danilo Rabeau.” The attestation also misstated Joseph’s hire date, position, hours, and salary compared with the testimony and authentic employer declaration.

Taken together, these discrepancies showed that an unknown third party, who had somehow obtained personal information and a copy of Joseph’s driver’s licence, had usurped his identity in order to rent the Place Phillips unit and pass Mr. Pinto’s screening. The Court described this as a clear case of identity theft, with both Joseph and Continelli counted among the victims of the fraud.

Legal framework for opposition to seizure and enforcement

Joseph’s opposition to the seizure was filed under article 735 paragraph 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows a person to contest a seizure or contemplated sale and request annulment of the seizure procedure, in whole or in part, where the procedure is tainted by an irregularity that results in serious prejudice, subject to the court’s power to allow the bailiff or seizing creditor to remedy the defect. The creditor, Mr. Continelli, argued that article 735(1)(4) was inapplicable because the seizure procedure had been duly followed and was not irregular in form. The court disagreed, grounding its reasoning in the basic principle that enforcement must be directed only against the property of the true debtor under the judgment.

Substantively, article 2646 of the Civil Code of Québec provides that creditors may bring proceedings to seize and sell the property of their debtor. Complementarily, article 679 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that forced execution is undertaken by the creditor of a judgment when the debtor does not voluntarily comply, and article 680 C.C.P. instructs that the bailiff is to seize the debtor’s property, including income. In the specific case of seizure in the hands of a third party, article 711 C.C.P. requires the garnishee to declare to the bailiff the cause and terms of any debt that it has or may have towards the debtor at the time of the declaration. These provisions collectively articulate a single rule: seizure can only be directed at the assets or receivables of the judgment debtor, i.e., the person bound by the underlying judgment.

Here, the only person who could validly be subject to execution for the TAL judgment was the actual tenant of the Place Phillips condominium—who, as the court found, was not Mr. Joseph. Consequently, there was no legal basis for Continelli to seize Joseph’s wages from his employer, since Joseph was not his debtor at all. The third-party seizure was therefore vitiated by a fundamental defect: it targeted the salary of someone who was not bound by the judgment. That defect was an irregularity within the meaning of article 735(1)(4) C.C.P. and one of a kind that could not be cured because it went to the very identity of the debtor whose property was being seized. The court also indicated that, had article 735 been seen as too narrow to cover Joseph’s situation, article 25(2) C.C.P., which allows the court to exercise its powers to avoid denial of justice, would have justified intervention in any event.

Access to recourse and the role of timeliness

An additional procedural question concerned the deadline to bring an opposition to seizure. Article 736 C.C.P. provides that an opposition must be served within 15 days of service of the seizure report, notice of sale or notice of third-party seizure. Joseph’s opposition was not filed within 15 days of the 20 November 2025 service at his workplace. However, the court noted that this time limit is not designated as a strict (délai de rigueur) deadline by the legislature. As a result, article 84 C.C.P. allowed the court to extend the period when justice so required. In the circumstances, given that Joseph only became aware of the seizure when advised by his employer’s payroll coordinator, and faced the prospect of having his wages applied to a debt he did not owe, the court held it necessary to extend the deadline and treat the opposition as validly filed to avoid a grave and manifest injustice.

The creditor also contended that Joseph should have applied to the Tribunal administratif du logement to have the 23 September 2025 decision set aside. The court rejected this argument. Joseph had not been a party to the TAL proceedings and was not the tenant under the relevant lease. The mere fact that his name appeared in the lease and in the TAL judgment as a result of the fraud did not create any legal link between him and the landlord–tenant dispute or convert him into a party with standing to seek retraction. Moreover, Continelli had lawfully proceeded against his real tenant and obtained a judgment recognising rights against that tenant; it was not for Joseph, an innocent third party, to attempt to deprive Continelli of those rights by asking the TAL to re-open the file. Rather, the appropriate forum and mechanism for Joseph was the opposition to seizure before the Court of Québec, focusing on the improper targeting of his property by enforcement measures.

Outcome and relief granted

The Court of Québec concluded that Joseph had established that the seizure in the hands of a third party directed at his salary had no juridical foundation. There was no debtor–creditor relationship between him and Mr. Continelli, and the TAL judgment could not be enforced against him because it bound only Continelli and the unidentified tenant who had used his name and documents. Recognising both Continelli and Joseph as victims of the identity fraud, the court nonetheless emphasised that enforcement law cannot sacrifice the rights of an innocent non-debtor simply to facilitate collection.

The court therefore allowed Joseph’s opposition, annulled the third-party seizure carried out in the hands of Hector Larivée inc. with respect to his wages, and granted him mainlevée (release) from that seizure. It further ordered a stay of all enforcement measures against Joseph arising from the TAL judgment of 23 September 2025 in file number 896134 31 20250708 G. The judgment was rendered “without court costs,” and the court did not make any monetary award, damages, or cost order in favour of Joseph. While the TAL decision itself had condemned the actual tenant to pay $2,100 plus interest, additional indemnity and specified fees, no amount was ever ordered in favour of Mr. Joseph in the Court of Québec proceedings. The successful party in this case is therefore Mr. Louinel Joseph, but the total monetary award or costs granted in his favour by the Court of Québec is nil, as no sums were ordered or quantified for his benefit.