Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jurisdictional dispute over whether the Court of Québec has subject-matter competence to hear a claim tied to rights of occupation and expulsion from parking spaces.
• Characterization of the relief sought as primarily declaratory and injunctive (expulsion and towing), rather than a purely monetary claim within the Court of Québec’s pecuniary limits.
• Determination that the alleged “non-right” of the defendants to occupy the parking spaces is not an accessory to a valid monetary claim under article 35 C.p.c.
• Assessment of whether the expulsion and towing orders amount to an injunction falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior Court (art. 509 C.p.c.).
• Evaluation of the promoter’s attempt to frame a property and injunction dispute as a claim for condo fees, special assessments and taxes to fit within the Court of Québec’s jurisdiction.
• Consequences of lack of jurisdiction: transfer of the entire case to the Superior Court and suspension of the safeguard order application and suspension request, with costs against the plaintiff.

Factual background

Édifice 1010 Sainte-Catherine Est inc. (Édifice) is the promoter of a divided co-ownership (condominium) project in Montréal. The building is administered by a syndicate of co-owners (Syndicat), which is not a party to this case. Several serious construction defects have allegedly affected the building, leading multiple co-owners to seek rescission of their condominium purchases before the Superior Court in separate proceedings.

The defendants, Vincent Beaulieu and Sébastien Brunet, are co-owners in the same building. They each own a condominium unit and occupy designated parking spaces in the building’s garage. These parking spaces are now identified as separate lots in the land registry. Édifice claims that it remains the owner of the parking lots and that the defendants have no title, lease, or other contractual right to occupy these spaces.

Édifice alleges that this occupation without right causes it immediate prejudice because the defendants pay no compensation while Édifice incurs expenses and seeks to sell the parking spaces. The dispute thus arises at the intersection of co-ownership, real estate rights in parking units, and the promoter’s claimed entitlement to fees and exclusive control over the spaces.

Procedural posture and relief sought

Édifice filed a proceeding in the Court of Québec that combines both interim and final relief. At the interim stage (by way of a safeguard order under article 49 C.p.c.), Édifice asked the Court, among other things, to order the defendants to pay a monthly amount of $115.94 per parking space, representing condominium fees associated with the parking spaces, payable on the first of each month from 1 December 2025. In default of payment within five days of service of the judgment, Édifice sought orders for the expulsion of the defendants from the parking spaces, authorization to tow any vehicles parked there, and a declaration that the defendants would be foreclosed from pleading, allowing Édifice to obtain default judgment on the principal claim. It also requested provisional execution and costs, including expulsion and towing expenses.

On the merits, Édifice sought payment of ordinary and special condo contributions, as well as municipal and school taxes, from each defendant. It claimed $45,144.35 from Beaulieu and $45,144.35 from Brunet, each “sauf à parfaire,” with legal interest and the additional indemnity under article 1619 C.c.Q. from the date of formal notice. Édifice further asked for an order expelling the defendants from the parking spaces within five days of judgment, authorization to tow any vehicles on those spaces, and full costs.

In essence, although formulated as a monetary and fee-recovery claim, the proceeding was structured to obtain, in practical terms, a court-backed declaration that the defendants have no right of occupation and to secure their forced removal from the parking lots.

Jurisdictional challenge and arguments

The defendants contested Édifice’s safeguard application and raised a preliminary declinatory exception under article 167 C.p.c. They argued that the Court of Québec lacked the material jurisdiction to hear the case. In their view, the dispute was not truly about amounts under $100,000 but about property and occupation rights and, above all, about injunctive relief (expulsion and towing), which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior Court.

They contended that the claim could not be validly characterized as a simple monetary claim within the pecuniary limits of article 35 C.p.c. The defendants also contended, in the alternative, that the proceedings should be suspended pending resolution of related Superior Court litigation between other co-owners and Édifice over serious construction defects and related issues.

Analysis of the Court of Québec’s jurisdiction

The Court began by recalling that the Court of Québec’s jurisdiction is essentially monetary and is conferred by attribution. Under article 35 C.p.c., the Court of Québec has exclusive jurisdiction where the value of the object of the dispute or the amount claimed is less than $75,000, and concurrent jurisdiction with the Superior Court where this value or amount is between $75,000 and $100,000, irrespective of interest, including in certain contract enforcement matters. However, the Court of Québec does not exercise this jurisdiction when the law gives exclusive jurisdiction to another body, notably the Superior Court, or in family matters.

The judge referred to the Québec Court of Appeal’s decision in Gignac c. Marcotte, where a property-rights dispute over immovable land fell outside the competence of the Court of Québec. There, the Court of Appeal emphasized that certain disputes, particularly those focused on property titles, boundary issues, and the attribution of ownership rights, are not properly characterized as monetary claims within the meaning of the Court of Québec’s jurisdictional provisions.

Applying that reasoning, the judge concluded that, although on its face the amounts claimed appear to fall below the $100,000 ceiling, the essential judicial outcome sought by Édifice is a declaration—at least implicitly—that the defendants have no right to occupy the parking spaces, followed by their expulsion. This is apparent both from the safeguard conclusions (expulsion and towing in case of non-payment) and the final conclusions on the merits.

Because Édifice alleges that the defendants’ occupation rests on no sale, lease, or other contract, the requested expulsion does not qualify as the execution in kind of a contractual obligation or as an accessory to a properly grounded monetary claim within article 35 C.p.c. The claim is built on a “non-right” of occupation, which is not reducible to a monetary value in the sense contemplated by the Court of Québec’s jurisdictional scheme.

Characterization of the expulsion and towing as an injunction

The Court further held that the remedies sought—expulsion of the defendants from the parking spaces and authorization to tow any vehicles located there—are, in substance, injunctive relief within the meaning of article 509 C.p.c. Under that provision, an injunction is an order of the Superior Court compelling a person (or, for entities, its officers or representatives) to do or refrain from doing something. The power to issue injunctions lies exclusively with the Superior Court.

Here, the expulsion and towing orders are not ancillary enforcement measures to a recognized monetary judgment; rather, they constitute the principal remedy sought. Since they are not the execution in kind of a contract nor merely accessory to a valid monetary claim within the Court of Québec’s jurisdiction, they fall squarely within the Superior Court’s exclusive power to grant injunctions.

The judge also observed that any monetary aspects of the case—the claimed fees, special assessments and taxes—are, at best, accessory in this litigation. The core of the dispute is the right (or alleged absence of right) to occupy and the forcible removal of the defendants from the parking spaces, and not simply the recovery of unpaid amounts.

Outcome and practical consequences

On this analysis, the Court of Québec concluded that it lacked the material jurisdiction to determine the dispute. The defendants’ declinatory motion to contest jurisdiction was therefore granted. The Court ordered the transfer of the file to the Superior Court of Québec, district of Montréal, which is the proper forum for a dispute involving property rights and injunctive relief of this nature.

Given this conclusion, the Court suspended the two other pending applications: the safeguard order request and the suspension application under article 212 C.p.c., leaving them to be dealt with, if necessary, by the Superior Court once seized of the matter. The Court also awarded costs of justice against Édifice in favour of the defendants.

The successful party in this decision is thus the defendants, Vincent Beaulieu and Sébastien Brunet, whose jurisdictional challenge prevailed. No damages, fees, or specific monetary amounts were awarded to them; the only financial consequence is an order that Édifice bear the defendants’ legal costs, but the exact amount of those costs is not determined in the judgment and cannot be ascertained from the decision.