Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Central legal question concerned whether the Commission’s order could be homologated when it had never been validly notified to the person it targeted, contrary to statutory and procedural rules.
• Evidence showed that the 2022 pre-notice was personally received by Jocelyn Lefebvre, while the 2024 order was only received and signed for by his mother at his parents’ address, not at his own domicile.
• The Court’s authority on a homologation application was confined by article 528 C.p.c. to reviewing the legality of the administrative act, not reassessing the merits of the Commission’s agricultural land-use concerns.
• A key issue was whether Mr. Lefebvre had a genuine opportunity to respond and comply with the order’s conditions (filing a $5,000 financial guarantee and an agronomic mandate) before enforcement through the Superior Court was sought.
• The chain of documents and testimonies (pre-notice, order, postal receipts, bailiff’s reports and follow-up inspection) demonstrated that the Commission continued to use an address that no longer corresponded to Mr. Lefebvre’s actual residence.
• Because the order had not been validly notified to Mr. Lefebvre under the Loi sur la protection du territoire et des activités agricoles and the Code de procédure civile, the Superior Court rejected the Commission’s homologation application, without court costs.

Factual background

The case arises from the regulatory framework protecting Québec’s agricultural land, administered by the Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec (the Commission). The Commission oversees activities such as fill work and non-agricultural uses on land within designated agricultural zones. In June 2021, in file 426050, the Commission authorized fill work over approximately 6,680 square metres on certain lots in the Montmorency land registration division. This authorization was conditional on two key requirements: the filing of a $5,000 financial guarantee and the submission of an agronomic mandate, both to be deposited with the Commission before work began. By April 2022, the Commission had not received either the financial guarantee or the agronomic mandate from the landowner, Jocelyn Lefebvre. In response, it issued a formal pre-notice (préavis) dated 4 April 2022 to Mr. Lefebvre at his parents’ address in Québec City. This pre-notice, sent by registered mail, was personally received and signed for by Mr. Lefebvre on 12 April 2022. The pre-notice set a deadline of 31 May 2022 for him to comply with the conditions of the prior authorization by filing the guarantee and the agronomic mandate. It also warned that failure to comply could lead the Commission to issue an order requiring him to cease the contravention, demolish the works if necessary and restore the land to its prior condition. In line with article 14.1 of the Loi sur la protection du territoire et des activités agricoles and article 5 of the Loi sur la justice administrative, the pre-notice advised Mr. Lefebvre of his right, during the prescribed period, to submit written observations, produce additional documents and request a meeting with Commission members to present his position on the alleged contraventions. Despite this, no evidence was presented showing that he exercised these rights or complied with the outstanding conditions by the set deadline.

The Commission’s order and subsequent steps

On 26 January 2024, Commissioner Alex Goupil issued an order under article 14 of the Loi sur la protection du territoire et des activités agricoles. The order named Jocelyn Lefebvre as the respondent and referenced the same address previously used by the Commission, that of his parents in Québec City. Substantively, the order required cessation, or non-resumption, of any non-agricultural use without right or authorization on the specified agricultural lots. More specifically, the order called upon Mr. Lefebvre to transmit to the Commission the required financial guarantee and agronomic mandate. In the alternative, it provided that he was to comply, at the latest, by 18 June 2024. The order was sent by registered mail to the parents’ address and was received on 2 February 2024 by Mr. Lefebvre’s mother, Suzanne Lefebvre, who signed the delivery receipt. The Commission later conducted a follow-up inspection. On 23 June 2025, an officer from the Direction de la surveillance du territoire, Mathis Girard, prepared a follow-up report. That report still identified Mr. Lefebvre at the parents’ address and indicated that Mr. Girard visited the relevant lots on avenue Royale in Château-Richer, met with Mr. Lefebvre on site, and completed his report accordingly. This continued reliance on the parents’ address persisted despite the fact that Mr. Lefebvre had, according to his testimony, been living for several years at his own residence in Château-Richer. It was only in the context of enforcement proceedings before the Superior Court that his actual domicile became formally apparent on the record.

The homologation application before the Superior Court

The Commission brought an application before the Superior Court for homologation of the 26 January 2024 order under articles 85 and 86 of the Loi sur la protection du territoire et des activités agricoles. Homologation is a procedural mechanism governed by article 528 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby the court approves an administrative decision or agreement and confers upon it enforceable force equivalent to a court judgment. Under article 528 C.p.c., the court dealing with such a request is limited to verifying the legality of the act in question. It does not re-evaluate the desirability or merits of the decision unless a specific statutory provision explicitly grants such power. In response, Mr. Lefebvre opposed the application on the basis that the Commission’s order had been made, and then relied upon for enforcement, without him having had an effective opportunity to be heard or to respond. He claimed he had never been personally notified of the order itself and only learned of its existence when the homologation application was served on him personally by a bailiff in October 2025 at his address in Château-Richer. His position was that the procedural defect in notification deprived him of the chance to comply with the order’s conditions or to contest the Commission’s approach before the matter escalated to the Superior Court.

Evidence of notification and addresses

The evidence before the Court included postal records, the pre-notice, the order, and two bailiff’s returns of service. The first bailiff’s report, dated 30 September 2025, described an attempted service of the homologation application at the parents’ address in Québec City. After inquiries, the bailiff learned that Mr. Lefebvre no longer lived at that address and that his new address was in Château-Richer, a detail confirmed by the real estate broker handling the sale of the parents’ residence. A second bailiff’s report recorded personal service of the homologation application, along with related documents, on Mr. Lefebvre at his Château-Richer domicile on 3 October 2025. The Court contrasted these facts with the earlier steps taken by the Commission. The pre-notice had been personally delivered and signed for by Mr. Lefebvre at the parents’ address in April 2022, which satisfied the requirement for proper notification at that stage. However, the later order, issued in January 2024, was only delivered to and signed for by his mother at the same address. Mr. Lefebvre testified that he had been residing at his own address in Château-Richer for several years and that his mother did not forward the order to him. The Commission’s own follow-up report, which still used the parents’ address even after direct contact with him on the land in Château-Richer, demonstrated that the address in the Commission’s file was outdated by the time the enforcement process was engaged. Legally, article 14 of the Loi sur la protection du territoire et des activités agricoles requires that an order be notified to the person concerned in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, with a copy sent to the local municipality. Articles 109 and 110 C.p.c. define notification as the act of bringing a document to the knowledge of the interested party by a mode that allows proof of its delivery or transmission. Although various modes are possible, the person who acknowledges receipt is deemed validly notified. In this case, the Court accepted that Mr. Lefebvre was validly notified of the 2022 pre-notice but not of the 2024 order, since only his mother had signed for that mailing and the order had neither been sent to his actual domicile nor personally delivered to him.

Legal framework and opportunity to be heard

The Court underscored that its role on a homologation application under article 528 C.p.c. is restricted to assessing the legality of the administrative act sought to be homologated. It cannot revisit the Commission’s substantive evaluation of land-use issues or the policy rationale behind protecting agricultural land. However, legality in this context includes compliance with the applicable procedural and notification requirements that ensure affected persons have a fair opportunity to know of, and respond to, the administrative order. The statutory scheme, particularly article 14.1 of the Loi sur la protection du territoire et des activités agricoles and article 5 of the Loi sur la justice administrative, is structured to guarantee that individuals receive sufficient notice and an opportunity to make representations before an order is issued or enforced. While the process leading up to the order respected this framework at the pre-notice stage—Mr. Lefebvre was personally informed of the allegations, the outstanding conditions, and his right to submit observations—the critical defect arose when the order itself was not validly notified to him. The order contained remedial options, including the possibility of curing the default by transmitting the financial guarantee and agronomic mandate before a specified date. By failing to reach him personally at his true domicile, the process deprived him of the chance to take advantage of that remedial window. The Court noted that Mr. Lefebvre stated he was willing to comply by transmitting the required documents, a position consistent with the remedial orientation of the statutory scheme.

Outcome and consequences

In light of the evidence, the Superior Court concluded that the order of 26 January 2024 had not been validly notified to Jocelyn Lefebvre as required by article 14 of the Loi sur la protection du territoire et des activités agricoles and the Code de procédure civile. The pre-notice had been validly communicated, but the final order—which the Commission now sought to homologate—had only been received by his mother at an address that no longer corresponded to his domicile. Because valid notification is a legal precondition for effective enforcement and for the exercise of the remedies contemplated in the order, this defect was fatal to the Commission’s request. The Court therefore rejected the Commission’s application for homologation of the order. The defendant, Jocelyn Lefebvre, emerged as the successful party in the proceeding. The judgment expressly states that this dismissal is rendered “sans frais de justice,” meaning no court costs are awarded to either side. There is no mention of any damages, penalties, or other monetary relief being ordered in favor of the defendant or any other party. Accordingly, while Mr. Lefebvre prevailed procedurally and avoided homologation of the order, the total monetary award or costs in his favor cannot be quantified beyond stating that no specific amount was awarded and that no recoverable court costs were granted in this decision.