Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Determination of whether the joint BMO bank loan was contracted in the exclusive interest of the defendant, triggering article 1537(2) C.c.Q. on contribution between solidary co-debtors.
• Assessment of the plaintiff’s right to full reimbursement of all payments (13,895.78 $) he made to the bank after the defendant ceased making loan payments.
• Evaluation and ultimate rejection of the plaintiff’s 10,000 $ claim for damage to his financial reputation due to lack of concrete, objective proof of reputational or credit harm.
• Scrutiny of the defendant’s late-raised allegations (forged signature, dispute over a 3,700 $ payment) and their credibility compared with documentary and testimonial evidence.
• Validation of the pre-judgment seizure of the defendant’s red Audi and allowance of related bailiff, towing and certain ancillary costs as proper judicial expenses.
• Refusal to award 32,236.39 $ in storage and guarding fees for the seized vehicle because the vehicle was stored in premises controlled by the plaintiff or a related company, contrary to rules on a seizing creditor acting as its own custodian.

Facts and background of the dispute

The case arises from the financing of a vehicle for the defendant, Valéry Vigneault, and the consequences of her default on a joint bank loan. The plaintiff, Louis Deslauriers, is a co-borrower on a loan with the Bank of Montreal (BMO) but claims that the loan was, in substance, exclusively for the defendant’s benefit. The dispute is heard before the Civil Division of the Court of Québec. Initially, on 26 February 2019, a company related to the plaintiff, Gestion Louis Deslauriers inc., lent 24,241.33 $ to Ms. Vigneault to acquire a white 2010 Audi S5. That loan was documented in writing and secured by a movable hypothec on the Audi, registered in the Quebec registry of personal and movable real rights.
On 30 April 2019, the parties contracted a 28,000 $ loan from BMO as co-borrowers. The proceeds were used mainly to repay the earlier corporate loan used to finance the white Audi, to pay a personal debt of Ms. Vigneault, and to service the bank loan. Under the bank agreement, the loan was repayable in equal monthly instalments of 534.27 $, at the BMO prime rate plus 1.5% per annum. The evidence showed that the white Audi was always in the possession and for the exclusive use of Ms. Vigneault; Mr. Deslauriers never used or controlled the vehicle. Subsequently, Ms. Vigneault also acquired a second vehicle, a red Audi, again for her personal needs.

Events leading to the breakdown and repayment dispute

From spring 2021, Ms. Vigneault progressively stopped making the required payments under the BMO loan and cut off communication with Mr. Deslauriers. Following interventions by BMO, Mr. Deslauriers learned of the default and, as a solidary co-debtor, began covering the monthly payments to prevent the loan from remaining in default. Between 29 March 2022 and 1 April 2025, he paid a total of 13,895.78 $ to the bank, ultimately leading to full repayment of the loan. The defendant made some partial payments in 2022, but the bulk of the repayment burden shifted to the plaintiff.
Mr. Deslauriers claimed that the BMO loan had been contracted purely in Ms. Vigneault’s interest and sought reimbursement of all amounts he had paid to the bank, plus ancillary costs and damages. Specifically, he asked for:

• 13,895.78 $ for loan payments made;
• 10,000 $ as damages for harm to his financial reputation;
• 220.64 $ for incidental costs (investigation and serving a demand letter); and
• 32,236.39 $ in connection with the pre-judgment seizure and storage of the defendant’s red Audi.

Procedural history and conduct of the proceedings

The case involved several procedural steps, including case management conferences, postponements, and unsuccessful settlement discussions. At a preparatory conference on 17 November 2025, Ms. Vigneault undertook to file her exhibits by 15 December 2025 and to retain counsel, but she failed to file documents within the set timeframe. The hearing on the merits took place on 22 January 2026.
At trial, Mr. Deslauriers was represented by counsel and supported his case chiefly through his own testimony, the testimony of Jacques-Olivier Demers (a CPA and controller at Gestion Louis Deslauriers inc.), and substantial documentary evidence (loan contracts, bank statements, and seizure documents). Ms. Vigneault appeared unrepresented, as her new lawyer had been struck off the Quebec Bar. She testified in her own defence and called her former spouse as a witness. She contested the enforceability of some sums, challenged aspects of the loan, and raised concerns about the impact of the pre-judgment seizure of her vehicle on her life.

Legal framework on solidary co-debtors and contribution

The court first set out the applicable civil law principles, focusing on solidary obligations and contribution between co-debtors. Under Quebec law, where several people contract a loan together, they are solidary co-debtors toward the creditor. Article 1537 of the Civil Code of Québec provides that, as a general rule, the debt is shared equally between them when they settle accounts among themselves. However, the second paragraph of article 1537 creates an important exception: if the obligation was contracted in the exclusive interest of one debtor—or if one debtor alone is at fault—then that debtor must bear the entire debt in relation to their co-debtors, who are then treated as if they were sureties. In such a scenario, a co-debtor who has paid the creditor in full may seek complete reimbursement from the debtor for whose benefit the obligation was contracted.
The court referred to doctrinal commentary and case law recognizing that a debtor who pays a solidary debt contracted strictly for another’s benefit can obtain full repayment of the amounts paid when settling accounts between co-debtors.

Finding that the BMO loan served only the defendant’s interests

On the facts, the court found that the BMO loan was contracted entirely for the personal benefit of Ms. Vigneault. The loan proceeds were used to: repay the prior hypothecated loan from Gestion Louis Deslauriers inc. that financed the white Audi; pay a personal debt of Ms. Vigneault (including 3,700 $ applied to such a debt); and service the bank loan itself. The plaintiff never enjoyed the white Audi or derived any tangible benefit from it. The vehicle was in the defendant’s continuous possession and served her exclusive personal use. The second red Audi later acquired was also solely for her personal needs.
In these circumstances, the court held that the bank loan conferred no real or direct advantage on Mr. Deslauriers, apart from enabling Ms. Vigneault to finance her vehicle and pay one of her own personal debts. The court therefore concluded that the BMO loan had been contracted in the exclusive interest of Ms. Vigneault within the meaning of article 1537, second paragraph, of the Civil Code. As a result, as between the co-debtors, she alone had to bear the entire obligation.

Plaintiff’s right to reimbursement of the payments made

Given that the defendant stopped making payments from spring 2021 and that the plaintiff then stepped in to make the required monthly instalments to the bank, the court evaluated whether he could reclaim those amounts from her. It found that from 29 March 2022 to 1 April 2025, Mr. Deslauriers paid a total of 13,895.78 $ to BMO to avoid a default and to fully extinguish the loan, and this amount was not seriously disputed as to quantum.
The defendant argued that some payments were not yet due or that the loan term had not fully expired, implying that the plaintiff may have paid in advance or unnecessarily. The court rejected this line of argument. It noted that BMO, as solidary creditor, properly required payment from him as co-debtor, that he did in fact pay sums that were due, and that the loan was by now fully repaid. Any debate about the original payment schedule was therefore moot. Applying article 1537(2) C.c.Q., the court held that Ms. Vigneault was obliged to reimburse Mr. Deslauriers for the full 13,895.78 $ he had paid on a loan contracted exclusively in her interest.

Assessment of the defendant’s credibility and late-raised challenges

At the hearing, Ms. Vigneault advanced several new objections that had not been properly set out in her earlier pleadings or defence summary. She claimed that her signature on the BMO loan documents had been forged and that a 3,700 $ amount allegedly paid on her behalf had never truly benefited her.
The court found these allegations to be unsupported and inconsistent with the evidence. It accepted the documentary record and the testimony of the plaintiff and his controller, as well as elements of the defendant’s own testimony, which showed that the 3,700 $ payment went to a personal debt of Ms. Vigneault, with her consent, even if it was paid directly to her creditor rather than to her. The forgery allegation was raised late, and there had been no expert report, complaint, or other meaningful investigation. Moreover, Ms. Vigneault had signed, on 22 June 2022, an authorization permitting BMO to take the loan payments directly from her TD Bank account each month, which was hard to reconcile with any genuine belief that her signature on the loan itself was forged. On the record, the court found no credible evidence to support forgery, and it considered these late-breaking claims incompatible with her earlier admissions about the loan and how its proceeds were used.

Claim for damage to financial reputation

In addition to reimbursement of loan payments, Mr. Deslauriers sought 10,000 $ as damages for alleged harm to his financial reputation, claiming that being involved in a defaulted loan had damaged his credit standing. The court acknowledged that the situation had understandably caused him concern and inconvenience. However, it stressed that civil liability for reputational harm, including financial reputation, requires proof of a real, distinct, and objectively measurable prejudice.
Here, there was no evidence of a refused credit application, deterioration of credit rating, increase in interest rate, or any concrete financial consequence directly linked to the defendant’s default. No credit reports or other objective documents were filed to demonstrate a specific impact on his financial reputation. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s worries and discomfort did not meet the threshold of compensable damage in civil law and therefore dismissed the 10,000 $ claim for damage to financial reputation.

Pre-judgment seizure and related costs

Because he could not recover the original white Audi and because the defendant persistently refused to repay him, Mr. Deslauriers applied for and obtained a pre-judgment seizure order over Ms. Vigneault’s second vehicle, a red Audi. On 14 February 2023, the court authorized the seizure, which was duly carried out. The defendant never sought to have this seizure annulled, and it thus remained valid throughout the proceedings.
At trial, the court examined whether the seizure should be confirmed and whether the plaintiff’s related cost claims were justified. It found that, at the time of the seizure order, there was a serious claim, and the defendant was in persistent default of repayment. The seizure was therefore declared good and valid. The court accepted as recoverable judicial expenses an amount of 829.53 $ for bailiff’s fees associated with the seizure and 179.65 $ for towing the vehicle, finding that the plaintiff had been fully justified in resorting to seizure to protect his rights.

Storage and guarding fees for the seized vehicle

The plaintiff also sought 32,236.39 $ for the storage and guarding of the seized red Audi. The evidence showed that the vehicle was stored in a building owned by a corporation related to him and that its physical custody was effectively ensured by Mr. Demers, the controller of Gestion Louis Deslauriers inc., a company controlled by Mr. Deslauriers.
In those circumstances, the court held that the vehicle was, in practice, being kept directly or indirectly under the control of the seizing creditor or closely related entities. Quebec case law makes it clear that a seizing creditor cannot serve as its own custodian—whether directly or through a related company—and then charge storage or custody fees as if they were third-party expenses. Relying on this principle, the court refused to order the defendant to pay the claimed 32,236.39 $ for storage and guarding.

Other incidental costs and overall outcome

Apart from the primary loan payments, Mr. Deslauriers sought reimbursement of smaller incidental expenses incurred in pursuing his claim and locating the defendant. The court allowed 91.06 $ paid to Contact Investigation to trace Ms. Vigneault, recognizing it as a reasonable and necessary cost directly tied to enforcing his rights. It also allowed 129.58 $ for serving the demand letter, treating that sum as part of the recoverable court costs.
In the result, the court partially granted the action. It ordered Ms. Vigneault to pay Mr. Deslauriers 13,895.78 $ representing the bank loan payments he had made, with contractual interest at BMO’s prime rate plus 1.5% per year from 25 May 2021, the date of formal notice. It further ordered her to pay 91.06 $ with legal interest and the additional indemnity under article 1619 C.c.Q. from the date of service, and it awarded as court costs the 129.58 $ for serving the demand letter, 829.53 $ for the bailiff’s seizure fees, and 179.65 $ for towing the vehicle. The court dismissed the 10,000 $ claim for damage to financial reputation and the 32,236.39 $ claim for storage and custody of the seized vehicle. Overall, the successful party is the plaintiff, Louis Deslauriers, who obtained a total principal and cost award of 15,125.60 $ (13,895.78 $ + 91.06 $ + 129.58 $ + 829.53 $ + 179.65 $) in his favor, plus contractual and legal interest that cannot be precisely quantified from the judgment alone.