Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Confusion and persistent errors in the designation of the corporate defendant (9215-5053 Québec inc. vs 9215-5035 Québec inc.) undermined the clarity of proceedings and enforcement efforts.
• The plaintiff sought to use a declaratory judgment under article 142 C.p.c. to extend a prior monetary judgment (the Bergeron judgment) to a corporation that was not named in that judgment.
• The court found that a specific rectification mechanism under article 338 C.p.c. exists for correcting judgments, making the declaratory proceeding an improper substitute for rectification.
• The judge confirmed that a judgment is not an “acte juridique” within the meaning of article 142 C.p.c., and therefore cannot be the object of a declaratory judgment.
• The attempt to reinterpret or extend the Bergeron judgment to bind 9215-5035 Québec inc. was characterized as an impermissible disguised appeal and a way to reopen final decisions.
• Ultimately, the declaratory application was dismissed with costs, leaving intact the original judgment condemning 9215-5053 Québec inc. to pay 14,838.67 $ and without creating enforceability against 9215-5035 Québec inc.

Background and parties

Les Services de coupe 3P inc. (3P) is a landlord that claimed unpaid rent and electricity charges in relation to commercial premises. Its original proceeding, launched on 8 April 2022, was a Demande introductive d’instance in recovery of arrears of rent and electricity consumption against 9215-5053 Québec inc. (5053), which was identified as the tenant-defendant. 9215-5035 Québec inc. (5035) later became involved, first as an intervening party and then as the company whose lawyer effectively conducted the defence, although its status in the style of cause and pleadings was repeatedly mishandled. Boy Ky Tang also entered the picture as a third party opposing enforcement measures, specifically the sale of seized movable property.

Initial default judgment and rectification attempt (Bergeron judgment)

After 5053 failed to respond to the initial claim, 3P obtained a default judgment on 27 September 2022. The matter did not end there. On 3 November 2022, 5035 notified a Demande de l’intervenante en rectification et en rétractation de jugement to 3P. In that application, 5035 alleged that 3P’s lawyer had made an error in naming the defendant; it asserted that it should have been named as defendant instead of 5053, and it consented to rectification of the judgment to substitute its name and raised that it had a defence and a counterclaim to advance. 3P responded on 14 November 2022 with a Demande en rejet de la demande de la défenderesse en rétractation et en déclaration d’abus. On 14 December 2022, the court retracted the default judgment and imposed a timetable for the continuation of the case. However, 3P never amended its originating application to correct the defendant’s name, and from that point forward both sides’ lawyers continued to confuse 5053 and 5035 in successive pleadings and procedural steps.

Ongoing procedural confusion in the defence and counterclaim

The confusion solidified in early 2023. On 13 January 2023, counsel for 5035 filed a Defence and counterclaim formally in the name of 5053, and the intervenant 5035 disappeared from the style of cause, even though it was 5035’s lawyer who was acting. The same confusion appeared in the notice of communication of exhibits. On 25 February 2023, the parties’ lawyers signed a Demande d’inscription pour instruction et jugement indicating that the defendant was now 5035, but the endorsement of that document still named 5053 as defendant. Later, on 1 November 2023 and 27 November 2024, counsel for 5035 notified corrected and amended Defences and counterclaims (identified as “1re modification” and “2e modification”). In those later pleadings, the defendant was shown as 5035, but the confusion persisted elsewhere in the file and endorsements.

The December 2024 trial and the March 2025 Bergeron judgment

The matter proceeded to a two-day trial on 12 and 13 December 2024. The minutes recorded 5053 as the defendant, and counsel for 5035 told the court he represented the defendant 5053. The trial judge even permitted 5053 to amend its counterclaim. As Judge Beaudry later summarized, this meant that 3P’s lawyer failed to notice that the case had reverted to the original defendant 5053, while 5035’s lawyer proceeded as though representing 5053 for two full trial days. On 18 March 2025, the court (Justice Martin Bergeron) rendered judgment, condemning 5053 to pay 14,838.67 $ to 3P. That judgment, referred to as the Bergeron judgment, is central to the later enforcement and declaratory issues.

Enforcement measures and recognition of the defendant-name problem

3P initially acted on the Bergeron judgment as rendered. On 12 May 2025, it issued a notice of execution against 5053. It then appears to have realized that, given the prior intervenor proceedings and the way the defence had been conducted, it might prefer to have the judgment stand against 5035 instead. On 13 April 2025, 3P’s lawyer prepared a Demande en rectification de jugement asking that the Bergeron judgment be amended so that 5035 would be named as defendant instead of 5053. That request was presented in practice court on 28 April 2025, but the judge there told counsel that such a rectification had to be presented before the judge who rendered the original judgment, namely Justice Bergeron. Counsel for 5035 did not contest the rectification request. On the same date, 3P’s lawyer wrote to the assistant of Justice Bergeron seeking rectification, without copying opposing counsel and without attaching formal proceedings. The assistant responded that he had to follow proper procedural steps to obtain the requested modification. Rather than pursuing the rectification process as directed, 3P’s lawyer obtained a modified notice of execution, still directed against 5053, and proceeded with seizures of numerous movable assets on 18 June 2025 and again on 11 and 18 July 2025.

Opposition to sale and La Rocque judgment

As a result of the seizures, Boy Ky Tang brought a third-party application opposing the sale of the seized property. 3P, in turn, filed a demand to dismiss the opposition to seizure and sale, effectively asking the court to validate the enforcement measures carried out under the Bergeron judgment despite 3P’s knowledge of the defendant-name error. These matters were heard by Justice Stéphanie La Rocque and decided on 5 November 2025. In that judgment, she described the file as “a good example of procedural muddle by lawyers” and rejected both 3P’s attempt to sustain its enforcement measures and the effort to sidestep the underlying confusion between 5053 and 5035. The rectification motion that 3P had prepared was taken off the roll (remise sine die) and was never properly presented to Justice Bergeron, leaving the original judgment intact and uncorrected.

The declaratory judgment application before Justice Beaudry

Instead of returning to the rectification route under the Code of Civil Procedure, 3P launched a new proceeding: an application for a declaratory judgment. Relying on article 142 C.p.c., 3P asked the Court of Québec to declare that the Bergeron judgment rendered on 18 March 2025 against 5053 was “exécutoire” (enforceable) against 5035, a corporation that is not named in the Bergeron judgment. In other words, rather than explicitly changing the text of the judgment through rectification, 3P asked the court to declare that this existing judgment should be treated as if it bound a different entity. Justice Beaudry noted that 3P had been instructed at least twice about the proper procedural path for rectification but “does not seem to understand” and instead tried to use a declaratory judgment to reach a third party not designated in the original judgment. The central legal question was whether article 142 C.p.c. could be used to obtain a declaratory ruling on the effect of an existing judgment so as to extend its enforceability to a company that was not a party to it.

Limits of declaratory relief and proper rectification mechanisms

In analyzing article 142 C.p.c., Justice Beaudry recalled that a declaratory judgment serves to resolve a real difficulty or to determine a status, right, power or obligation arising from an “acte juridique.” Article 142 essentially restates the former article 453 C.p.c., with the same doctrinal and jurisprudential guidance on when declaratory relief is appropriate. The Court of Québec now has jurisdiction to grant such relief where the value of the matter in dispute is under 100,000 $, but this does not expand the substantive scope of what can be declared. Citing prior caselaw, Justice Beaudry underlined that declaratory relief may be refused where there are other adequate and efficient remedies provided by law. In this case, there was a specific statutory mechanism for correcting judgments—rectification under article 338 C.p.c.—which 3P had not properly pursued before the trial judge who rendered the Bergeron judgment. Justice Beaudry emphasized that a judgment is not an “acte juridique” as defined by the Minister of Justice’s commentary on article 142, which identifies an “acte juridique” as an act of will intended to produce a legal effect, such as a contract, will, statute, regulation, decree or resolution. A judicial decision does not fit within that category and therefore is not a proper object of a declaratory judgment under article 142. The judge also relied on authority holding that first-instance courts do not have a mandate to interpret or modify judgments they or their colleagues have already rendered, except through specific procedural avenues like rectification, appeal, retraction of judgment or judicial review, as appropriate in the circumstances.

Rejection of the attempt to reinterpret or extend the Bergeron judgment

Justice Beaudry concluded that using a declaratory application to pronounce on the meaning or effect of a prior judgment would amount to a disguised appeal and a means of revisiting final decisions. She noted that even if the request were reframed in light of article 657 C.p.c. (regarding interpretation of judgments), the court could not interpret the Bergeron judgment in a way that makes it say what it does not say, nor could it modify that judgment so as to render it enforceable against a corporation that is not named in its dispositive part. The declaratory judgment application therefore failed on both conceptual and procedural grounds: the object of the requested declaration (a previous judgment) is not an “acte juridique” within article 142, and there existed a specific, unexhausted rectification remedy that 3P had simply not taken through the proper channels.

Outcome and financial consequences

In the 12 February 2026 judgment, Justice Beaudry rejected 3P’s application for a declaratory judgment and ordered that it be dismissed with costs, expressly stating that the Demande de la demanderesse en jugement déclaratoire is rejected with court costs. The decision leaves intact the Bergeron judgment of 18 March 2025, in which 9215-5053 Québec inc. was condemned to pay 14,838.67 $ to Les Services de coupe 3P inc. There is no change to the identity of the debtor in that underlying monetary judgment, and no new damages are awarded. The successful parties in the 2026 proceeding are therefore the respondents resisting the declaratory application (principally 5053 and 5035 in their respective roles), while 3P is unsuccessful and must bear costs. The precise amount of those costs cannot be determined from the judgment, as the court simply awards “frais de justice” without quantifying them, leaving assessment to the usual tariff and procedural mechanisms.