Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Characterization of the RV sale as a consumer transaction involving alleged misrepresentation of a used vehicle as “new” and resulting liability in reduction of price and damages
• Procedural challenge by the defendants through a pourvoi en rétractation de jugement based on alleged involuntary absence from the original small claims hearing due to medical incapacity
• Assessment of whether the defendant’s health condition and circumstances qualified as a “cause jugée suffisante” under articles 346 and 568 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside a default-type judgment
• Evaluation of the defendant’s diligence in communicating with the court, seeking a postponement, or arranging representation at the hearing, given his prior knowledge of both surgery follow-up and the hearing date
• Balancing the right to a full defence against the principle of stability and irrevocability of judgments in the context of small claims retraction proceedings
• Determination that the defendants failed to meet their evidentiary burden to justify retraction, leading to the maintenance of the original consumer protection judgment in favor of the purchasers

Facts of the underlying consumer dispute

Jean-Claude Turner and Diane Gourdeau purchased a recreational vehicle (RV) from Escale VR on 26 September 2016. The unit was a Gulf Stream Trail Master, model year 2015, for a total price of 26,765.17 $. The written sales contract described the RV as “new,” but Turner and Gourdeau maintained that the vehicle was in fact used. This alleged misrepresentation about the condition and status of the vehicle set the stage for a consumer dispute, with the buyers invoking their rights under the Quebec consumer protection regime. The case proceeded before the Cour du Québec, Small Claims Division, in the judicial district of Québec. Four defendants were pursued on a solidary basis: Escale VR Beaumont inc., Escale VR inc., Les Entreprises Helmarco inc., and Marco Faucher personally. The plaintiffs claimed 15,000 $ arising from the transaction, seeking compensation and redress for what they viewed as a defective or misrepresented sale of a recreational vehicle.

The initial small claims hearing and default-type judgment

An initial hearing was held on 2 October 2025 before Judge Chantal Gosselin of the Cour du Québec, Small Claims Division. Although properly summoned, Marco Faucher did not appear in person, either for himself or as representative of the three corporate defendants. Two witnesses he had caused to be subpoenaed did attend, but because they were not designated as mandataries for the defendants, they were not heard as presenting the defence. In the absence of the defendants, the court received the evidence of Turner and Gourdeau and closed the hearing. On 27 October 2025, Judge Gosselin rendered a judgment partly granting the plaintiffs’ claim. Applying article 272 of the Loi sur la protection du consommateur (Consumer Protection Act), she awarded 10,500 $ as damages and reduction of the sale price, and an additional 3,000 $ in punitive damages. This resulted in a total of 13,500 $ in favor of Turner and Gourdeau, reflecting both compensatory relief tied to the sale and exemplary sanctions for the consumer law breach. After this judgment, Turner and Gourdeau commenced enforcement measures, including seizure, to collect the amounts awarded.

The defendants’ attempt to retract the judgment

On 4 December 2025, Marco Faucher filed a pourvoi en rétractation de jugement in the Small Claims Division on his own behalf and on behalf of the three corporate defendants. He stated that he had learned of the judgment on 7 November 2025, placing his application within the strict deadlines of article 568 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In his retraction application, he asserted that his absence at the 2 October 2025 hearing was involuntary and justified by a serious medical impediment beyond his control. He explained that he had previously undergone hip replacement surgery and that, during the week of the hearing—particularly on the morning of 2 October—he experienced acute pain and was taking analgesics, which allegedly made him physically unable to attend court. He also claimed that employees went to the courthouse to ensure that the defendants’ position would be heard, but that their presence apparently did not allow the defence to be adequately presented. Beyond challenging the circumstances of his absence, Faucher also alleged that he had a “valid defence” on the merits that could not be presented because he was not there. He contended that the first judgment contained several factual errors. Among them, he stated that the court was wrong to find that Escale VR was not an authorized Gulf Stream dealer, insisting that they did hold that status and that Gulf Stream had participated in efforts to resolve the situation. He further asserted that the RV sold was indeed new and that he could produce the certificate of origin to confirm that the unit was new at the time of delivery. He also mentioned that other contractual, administrative, and technical documents would correct alleged inaccuracies in the original judgment.

Procedural framework for retraction of judgment

The retraction application was grounded in articles 346 and 568 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Article 346 provides that a party condemned by default—by failing to respond to the originating application, attend a case management conference, or contest on the merits—may seek retraction if it was prevented from defending itself by fraud, surprise, or another “cause jugée suffisante.” The application must set out both the reasons that justify retraction and the substantive defences to the original claim. Article 568, located in the section of the Code dealing specifically with Small Claims, requires that the retraction application be filed within 30 days of knowledge of the judgment and within six months of its rendering, in a sworn declaration setting out the grounds. If the grounds appear sufficient on their face, the court may suspend enforcement and summon the parties to be heard on both the retraction and, if appropriate, the merits. In this case, on 15 December 2025, Judge Manon Gaudreault authorized the proceeding to go forward in an initial step, scheduling an oral hearing on both the reasons for retraction and the substance of the dispute. She noted that explanations and actual proof were required regarding the medical aspect of Faucher’s absence and the alleged presence of employees at court that had not been recorded in the minutes. This authorization allowed a full hearing to be held on 13 March 2026.

Evidence and analysis on the alleged medical impediment

At the 13 March 2026 hearing, the court, presided by Judge Pierre Coderre, first focused on whether the legal conditions for retraction were met. The court reminded the parties that, under article 346, Faucher had to establish that he was prevented from defending himself by fraud, surprise, or some other sufficient cause, and that the burden of proof under articles 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Québec rests with the party asserting such cause. Faucher produced two related documents. One was a letter dated 12 August 2025 from orthopedic surgeon Dr. Thomas Marceau-Côté at Hôpital de Montmagny, referring to follow-up for right hip replacement surgery and prescribing a radiology (X-ray) exam of his right hip. The letter advised him to complete the imaging “as soon as possible in the next few days” and indicated that he would be contacted in the coming months for a telephone follow-up with the orthopedic surgeon. An attached prescription ordered an X-ray of his right hip. Faucher testified that he had undergone the hip replacement surgery in August 2025, approximately two months before the 2 October 2025 hearing, and that during the two weeks leading up to the hearing he suffered pain that, combined with his pain medication, prevented him from traveling to the courthouse on the hearing date. Despite this, the court put his conduct into a broader procedural context. The original small claims action had been filed on 16 March 2020. Faucher filed a contestation on 5 May 2020, stating in general terms that he had attempted to reach a settlement with Gourdeau, without success, and annexing only one document (a prior response letter to the plaintiffs’ demand dated 11 November 2018). Over more than five and a half years between 2020 and the October 2025 hearing, he filed no amended defence and produced no additional supporting documents. The court stressed that, in the critical period before the hearing, Faucher did not contact the Small Claims Division registry to request an adjournment, did not ask permission to appear remotely (for example, via Microsoft Teams), and did not formally appoint any representative to appear on his and the companies’ behalf. The two individuals he had subpoenaed, Jean-Keven Lemelin and Anie Pilote, were listed as witnesses, not as mandataries, and thus could not legally plead the case for the defendants. As a result, they were not heard by Judge Gosselin. Faucher also admitted that he did not contact any assistance service such as Info-Justice, the Barreau de Québec, or consult the Cour du Québec website to explore options when he realized he might not be able to attend in person. Against this background, the court considered jurisprudence on retraction of judgment, including a decision in Ford Lincoln du West Island c. Lauferman, where the Small Claims Division underscored the tension between the right to a full defence and the principle of finality of judgments, and emphasized that retraction remains exceptional and requires serious grounds. That authority stressed that health-related justifications must be backed up by adequate proof and must show a real impossibility to act with diligence. Applying these principles, Judge Coderre concluded that Faucher had not shown that his situation fell within fraud, surprise, or a “cause jugée suffisante.” The August 2025 medical documentation merely showed he had undergone surgery and required an X-ray and follow-up; it did not demonstrate that he was absolutely unable to communicate with the court, request accommodation, or arrange representation. Nor did it explain his failure to take steps in the days and weeks before the hearing despite knowing both his medical situation and the hearing date. On the evidence, the court held that the defendants had not acted with the diligence required to avoid a default-type judgment and had not met their burden to justify setting the judgment aside.

Outcome of the retraction application and final result of the case

Having found that the legal and evidentiary thresholds for retraction were not satisfied, the court rejected the pourvoi en rétractation de jugement. Because the retraction was denied, the court did not reopen or reconsider the merits of the underlying consumer dispute about whether the RV was truly new, whether the defendants were authorized Gulf Stream dealers, or whether the factual findings in the original judgment should be revisited. Instead, Judge Coderre expressly declined to address the merits, holding that the prior judgment by Judge Gosselin remained in force. In its operative part, the 2026 judgment dismisses the defendants’ retraction application, maintains the 27 October 2025 judgment, and lifts the suspension of enforcement previously ordered when the retraction was initially authorized to proceed. As a result, Turner and Gourdeau, as purchasers and consumers, remain the successful parties in the litigation. They keep the monetary award granted by the 2025 judgment: 10,500 $ for damages and reduction of sale price, plus 3,000 $ in punitive damages, for a total of 13,500 $. The 2026 judgment is also rendered with costs of justice in their favor, but the exact amount of those costs is not specified in the text and therefore cannot be determined from the decision.