Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope of article 657 C.p.c. and whether it allows a court-ordered sale of corporate shares as a “natural extension” of a prior default judgment for payment of a monetary debt.
• Divergent expert evidence on the fair market value of shares in corporations linked to Château Bromont inc., and whether the proposed sale price of 400,000 $ is commercially reasonable.
• Concerns over potential conflicts of interest and self-dealing, given Patrick Charbonneau’s dual roles within Château Bromont-related entities and as purchaser of the debtor’s shares.
• The adequacy and reliability of valuation methodologies, including a software-assisted report (Hadaly) versus a traditional expert report (DV Consultation).
• Limits on using article 657 C.p.c. as a procedural “cure-all” for complex, multi-party corporate and creditor disputes surrounding a judgment debtor’s main asset.
• Alleged serious breach of the conduct of proceedings under article 342 C.p.c. by the judgment debtor, and the court’s refusal to characterize delay in producing an expert report as such a breach.

Facts of the case

Partenariat Immo SP inc. (Immo SP) obtained a default judgment on 20 June 2025 against Gestion Prévin inc. (Prévin), ordering Prévin to pay 400,000 $ plus interest and the additional indemnity from 18 November 2024. The judgment arose from a commercial dispute in which Immo SP, as creditor, sought to recover a significant debt from Prévin. The decision now under review, dated 5 March 2026, deals not with the merits of the original claim, but with post-judgment measures to enforce that monetary condemnation. Prévin’s principal asset is 9442-1567 Québec inc. (9442), a corporation that itself holds 45% of the shares of Château Bromont inc. (CBI). Immo SP targeted this shareholding structure as the main avenue to execute its judgment. Additional corporate entities were involved, including several numbered Québec companies and Partenariat Immo GCP inc., all controlled by Prévin and of interest as possible sources of recovery. The defendants include Gestion Prévin inc., Fiducie familiale Prévost, and individual defendants Yvan and Vincent Prévost. Evidence further indicated that Vincent Prévost is the majority shareholder of 9442 and also serves as secretary and a beneficiary of Immo SP, underlining tight links between the debtor’s principal asset and the judgment creditor.

Post-judgment enforcement efforts and proposed share sale

To enforce the default judgment, Immo SP initiated execution measures in July 2025. A bailiff published an initial notice of execution and an “avis de vente sous contrôle de justice de gré à gré” for certain corporate share blocks controlled by Prévin. Immo SP, its lawyers and bailiffs then attempted to identify buyers willing to acquire these shares at a commercially reasonable price so that Immo SP could realize on the 400,000 $ judgment. No funds had yet been recovered by the time of the 5 March 2026 hearing. In October 2025, businessperson Patrick Charbonneau, representing CBI and 9444-8560 Québec inc., approached Immo SP with a proposal. He suggested a structure and price for purchasing shares of several Prévin-controlled corporations, including 9442. The global proposed purchase price for the relevant share blocks was 400,000 $. This offer became central to Immo SP’s application, which asked the court to authorize the sale of the shares on those terms as a measure “proper to facilitate execution” under article 657 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.p.c.). The defendants opposed the sale, arguing that the shares were being sold at a steep discount relative to their true value. Interveners 9379-4394 Québec inc. and Réjean Plante also appeared, seeking to protect their own creditor position in relation to Prévin because the same shares were already subject to a pre-judgment seizure ordered in another proceeding.

Related corporate disputes and relationships

The factual matrix was complicated by overlapping roles and parallel litigation involving the Château Bromont corporate group. The court noted that 9442 holds 45% of CBI’s shares, making it a major shareholder in that operating company. In a separate case (file no. 460-17-003754-256), a company represented by Mr. Charbonneau, 9470-7502 Québec inc., had brought an oppression-type action against Prévin and 9442 in connection with CBI. That separate suit suggested a broader shareholder conflict within the CBI structure. Moreover, corporate records showed that Mr. Charbonneau sits as a director of 9442, while also representing entities that proposed to buy 9442’s shares. This dual role raised concerns about possible conflicts of interest and about whether CBI or its affiliates might acquire a significant shareholder’s interest at an under-value through the enforcement process. The fact that Vincent Prévost is both a controlling shareholder of 9442 and a beneficiary of Immo SP added another layer of internal alignment and potential tension, blurring the line between debtor, creditor and corporate insider.

Procedural history leading to the expert valuations

Immo SP filed an initial version of its application for orders under article 657 C.p.c. on 19 November 2025, seeking authorization to sell the shares under court supervision and to obtain ancillary relief. That application was postponed by Justice Janick Perreault to 19 December 2025 to allow Prévin to disclose documents necessary for an expert valuation of the shares. On 19 December 2025, Prévin still had not produced its expert report. Justice Yiannakis granted a final extension, ordering that Prévin file an expert valuation by 19 January 2026. By the time of the 23 January 2026 hearing before Justice Thomas M. Davis, the court had before it two valuation reports: one prepared for Immo SP and one prepared for Prévin. These competing expert opinions became the backbone of the evidentiary debate on whether the 400,000 $ proposed sale price was commercially reasonable and whether ordering a sale at that price complied with the requirements of article 657 C.p.c.

Expert evidence on share valuation

The valuation for Immo SP was prepared using a software-based approach via Logiciels Hadaly Inc. Hadaly describes itself as a corporate data platform generating analytical information based entirely on client-provided inputs, with broad disclaimers: the analysis is supplied “as is” without any guarantee of accuracy, completeness or suitability for a particular purpose, and it is expressly not a recommendation to pursue any course of action. Relying on this tool, the Immo SP report assessed the fair market value of CBI’s shares at between 8,000,000 $ and 9,800,000 $. Given 9442’s 45% interest in CBI, this implied a value of roughly 3,600,000 $ for 9442’s holding in CBI alone. Immo SP nonetheless argued that 9442’s net value was negative because of a 4.6 million dollar loan that CBI had advanced to 9442. From its perspective, that debt burden meant that a 400,000 $ sale price for the relevant share blocks was an appropriate and practical way to monetize its judgment. Prévin’s expert report, prepared by DV Consultation, took a different approach. It valued the 9442 shares between 3,400,000 $ and 4,200,000 $, or between 1,000,000 $ and 1,800,000 $ under a scenario where the 4.6 million dollar CBI loan is kept at its book value without discounting. Even under the more conservative assumption, the debtor’s expert considered the shares worth at least 1,000,000 $, far above the 400,000 $ global price proposed by Mr. Charbonneau’s group. Faced with such divergent reports, Justice Davis emphasized that, on a summary application under article 657 C.p.c., the court could only examine the procedures and filed exhibits and did not have the evidentiary foundation or mandate to definitively adjudicate the true fair market value of the shares.

Legal framework: Article 657 C.p.c. and its limits

Article 657 C.p.c. authorizes the court, after judgment, to make any order “proper to facilitate execution, voluntary or forced, in the manner most consistent with the interests of the parties and most advantageous for them.” The decision reviews appellate and doctrinal guidance on this provision, including commentary that it should be interpreted broadly and liberally so as to give full effect to judgments and avoid unnecessary relitigation and procedural proliferation. The judge recalls that article 657 C.p.c. is inspired by the Uniform Law on the Enforcement of Judgments ordering payment and allows remedial orders to protect interests arising from the execution of a judgment. At the same time, the case law stresses that such facilitation orders must remain a “natural extension” of the underlying judgment and cannot fundamentally alter its substance or effect. The judgment also cites Justice Pinsonnault’s analysis in Latreille c. Latreille, which underlines that article 657 C.p.c. must be read together with article 683 C.p.c., requiring parties involved in enforcement to act in good faith, collaborate in proper execution and refrain from conduct that undermines enforcement. Justice Pinsonnault’s reasoning emphasizes that while article 657 C.p.c. should receive a broad and liberal interpretation, it has limits: it is not a “panacea” or universal key to resolve every issue, directly or indirectly, arising from a judgment. Justice Davis adopts this cautionary view, confirming that the court’s discretion cannot be stretched to redesign complex corporate and creditor relationships under the guise of facilitating execution.

Application of article 657 C.p.c. to the proposed share sale

The central question was whether authorizing the sale of the shares at the proposed price of 400,000 $ constituted a natural and appropriate extension of the original default judgment and met the statutory requirement of being most consistent with, and most advantageous to, the parties’ interests. At first sight, allowing a sale might appear clearly connected to enforcing a judgment for 400,000 $, especially as Immo SP has an undisputed right to effect execution. However, the court examined several contextual factors that complicated this narrative. First, the defendants’ expert evidence suggested that the shares’ value might be many times higher than the proposed sale price, even when the 4.6 million dollar CBI loan is taken into account. Second, Mr. Charbonneau’s multiple roles—as an administrator of 9442 and representative of CBI and a purchasing company—created a substantive risk that CBI or its affiliates could acquire a significant shareholder’s stake at a substantial discount through the forced execution process. This raised concerns not only for Prévin, but also for other stakeholders such as minority shareholders and creditors. Third, the court had before it only conflicting expert reports and a software-assisted valuation that itself carried strong disclaimers on accuracy and suitability. In that evidentiary context, Justice Davis concluded that the court did not have enough information to declare the proposed prices commercially reasonable or to ensure that such a sale would be “most advantageous” for all parties as required by article 657 C.p.c. Authorizing the sale risked enabling a transfer of a strategic corporate interest at a significant undervalue, contrary to the protective and facilitative function of the provision.

Suggested path forward: Common valuation and professional sale process

Rather than imposing an alternative solution, the court highlighted that the parties collectively have an interest in resolving their broader disputes and designing a fair enforcement path. Justice Davis pointed to two key avenues. First, the preparation of a common expert valuation of the shares held by Prévin-controlled entities would provide a more reliable benchmark of fair market value for any eventual sale. This would reduce the gap between competing valuations and protect against allegations of undervaluation or self-dealing. Second, the court suggested that the parties consider mandating an independent professional to solicit potential buyers for the shares. A professionally managed sale process, built on a jointly accepted valuation, would be more likely to achieve a price that reflects true market conditions and respects both the judgment creditor’s right to be paid and the debtor’s and creditors’ interest in preserving residual value.

The article 342 C.p.c. request and alleged serious breach

In addition to the facilitation orders under article 657 C.p.c., Immo SP asked the court to find that Prévin had committed a “manquement important au déroulement de l’instance” under article 342 C.p.c., mainly because of delay in producing its expert report. While the court acknowledged that Prévin could and should have acted more promptly, it refused to characterize this conduct as a serious breach within the meaning of article 342 C.p.c. Justice Davis placed weight on the fact that Justice Yiannakis had already granted a final opportunity to produce the expert by 19 January 2026, effectively dealing with the delay issue within case management. Moreover, the court observed that the broader situation surrounding the sale of the shares was inherently complex—factually, corporately and financially. Against that backdrop, the delay in filing the expert, although regrettable, did not amount to the kind of grave procedural fault that article 342 C.p.c. targets.

Outcome and monetary consequences

The Superior Court ultimately rejected Immo SP’s amended application for orders under article 657 C.p.c. to authorize the sale of the corporate shares and for a declaration of a serious breach under article 342 C.p.c. The court refused to declare the proposed sale prices commercially reasonable and declined to order a sale that risked enabling CBI, through related entities, to acquire a significant shareholding at a potentially substantial discount. Recognizing that it was still appropriate for the creditor to seek guidance on enforcement, Justice Davis ordered that the dismissal be without costs: no party obtained any new monetary award, damages or costs in this 5 March 2026 decision. Taking both decisions together, the only quantified monetary award remains the earlier default judgment of 400,000 $ in favor of Immo SP, plus interest and additional indemnity from 18 November 2024, but the precise aggregate amount (including all accrued interest and any recoverable costs) cannot be determined from the record. In the specific post-judgment ruling of 5 March 2026, however, the successful parties are the defendants and interveners, as the application of Immo SP is dismissed and no additional sums are ordered to be paid in their favor.