Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Characterisation of the listing broker’s email, including a link to a past negative newspaper article, as alleged civil fault and defamation against the notary.
• Tension between contractual terms of the promise to purchase (title insurance only) and the notary’s additional demands for a $5,000 holdback and $150 extra fee for reviewing a future certificate of location.
• Assessment of whether sharing an old media article about the notary, and asking if he was the “notaire aux pratiques douteuses”, was justified in context or an unjustified attack on reputation.
• Evaluation of both professionals’ conduct against their respective ethical and deontological standards, including tone, civility, prudence and diligence toward their clients’ interests.
• Proof of actual reputational and financial harm: whether the notary established a causal link between the email and any loss of mandates, income or standing in the Greek community.
• Competing claims of abuse of procedure by both sides, each seeking extrajudicial fees and sanctions for allegedly frivolous or vexatious litigation.

Facts of the case

Nicholas Polyzos is a Montréal-area notary with roughly forty years of practice and an established clientele within the Greek communities of Montréal and Laval. Over his career he estimates having been involved in about 7,000 real estate sale transactions. Robert Boyer is a residential real estate broker of some 22 years’ experience and founder of the brokerage Groupe Sutton sur l’île R. Boyer Inc. He has participated in approximately 2,000 real estate transactions. In mid-2022, Boyer, acting as listing broker for a seller, marketed a residential property. A buyer represented by another broker, Alekos Fiorillo-Laroche, submitted a promise to purchase for $1,175,000, which the seller accepted. The promise to purchase required the seller, at his expense, to provide an up-to-date certificate of location reflecting the new Québec cadastral system, the current state of the property and all public and private restrictions, with delivery no later than the scheduled signing of the deed of sale on 1 August 2022. The parties acknowledged that the seller’s existing certificate was outdated and did not reflect the new cadastre. The contract also stipulated that, if an updated certificate could not be delivered before the signing, the seller would subscribe to a title insurance policy at his expense. It did not provide for any notarial holdback of sale proceeds. The buyer’s spouse is the daughter of a family that had long been clients of Polyzos. She contacted him to prepare the documentation for the acquisition, and Polyzos agreed to act as notary for the purchasers.

The emerging dispute over the certificate of location and the holdback

As the closing date approached, it became apparent that the updated certificate of location would not be ready in time, a situation that was common in that period given widespread delays with land surveyors. The seller had, in fact, mandated an arpenteur-géomètre in early May 2022, about a month before the property was listed, but the certificate remained outstanding. Polyzos took the position that, despite the title insurance the seller would purchase, he was obliged in prudence to require an additional $5,000 holdback from the sale proceeds, to be kept in his trust account until the new certificate was delivered. The purpose, he said, was to ensure that any zoning, by-law or servitude issues revealed later (such as unpermitted structures or encroachments) could be corrected at the seller’s expense. He also proposed charging an extra $150 plus taxes to review the eventual certificate. Boyer, on behalf of the seller, rejected both the holdback and the extra fee, arguing that the promise to purchase already allocated risk by providing for seller-paid title insurance. In his view, adding a holdback contradicted the contract and unfairly exposed the seller, particularly an elderly client, to the risk that the notary might decide unilaterally how to spend the $5,000.

The contested email and the La Presse article

Email exchanges between the notary and the broker quickly escalated. Polyzos wrote in a brusque and condescending tone, insisting that he would impose the holdback and fee and criticizing Boyer’s professionalism, including accusing him of listing the property without having ordered the certificate of location. The evidence later showed that this accusation was inaccurate, since the certificate had been ordered weeks before the listing. Feeling attacked and concerned about his client’s exposure, Boyer conducted an internet search of the notary’s name. The first result he encountered was a 2010 La Presse article titled “Un notaire aux manœuvres douteuses”, summarizing a Superior Court judgment that contained very unfavourable comments about Polyzos’s conduct and character in an unrelated business dispute, as well as referencing a past disciplinary sanction. Boyer then sent the now-contested email to Polyzos, copying both the seller and, for the first time, the buyer’s broker. In that email he reiterated his refusal of the holdback, noted current delays with certificates of location, questioned how often Polyzos handled real estate files, and asked, “Est-ce vous le notaire aux pratiques douteuses?” while pasting a hyperlink to the La Presse article. Polyzos considered this email deeply injurious, particularly because it introduced the buyer’s broker into the chain and invited him to read an article that portrayed the notary in a very negative light. He viewed it as a gratuitous attack on his reputation and alleged that it led the buyer, his spouse and their family, as well as the wider Greek community, to lose confidence in him.

Change of notary and completion of the transaction

Following receipt of the email and the mounting tension, the buyer’s broker sought to calm the situation. Recognising the discomfort the article and exchanges had created, he explored ways to avoid jeopardising the transaction, including the possibility of appointing a different notary. After consulting in-house counsel at his own brokerage, he summarised that the seller’s real fear was not the notary’s past as such, but the risk that a $5,000 holdback could be retained in whole or in part once the new certificate arrived. The consensus solution was to proceed with another notary. The parties agreed to replace Polyzos with notary Aspri, who completed the transaction on 29 July 2022. The deed of sale was signed without any holdback, in accordance with the promise to purchase, and with a title insurance policy subscribed at the seller’s expense. The new notary did not demand the additional protections Polyzos had insisted upon.

The claims and defences in court

Polyzos brought an action in the Court of Québec against Boyer and his brokerage. He claimed $12,500 in compensatory damages for alleged permanent harm to his reputation, both with the buyer’s family and in the broader Greek community of Montréal and Laval, and $5,000 in punitive damages. He argued that the email and hyperlink amounted to defamation, that Boyer had acted in bad faith with the intention of destroying his credibility, and that the broker’s conduct also constituted a professional fault breaching his statutory and regulatory duties. Boyer and his brokerage denied any intention to harm. They contended that they had acted reasonably to protect the seller’s interests, that the article was a matter of public record which they had not authored, and that the controversial email was sent privately within the circle of participants in the transaction. They also challenged Polyzos’s evidence on damages, asserting that he had not proved any concrete loss. In a reconventional demand, they further alleged that Polyzos’s suit was abusive and part of a vendetta, and sought reimbursement of $13,685.33 in extrajudicial fees and related relief. In turn, Polyzos responded that the defence and counterclaim were themselves abusive and claimed $2,500 in compensatory damages plus $12,028.82 for his own legal fees incurred to respond to the reconventional demand.

Defamation analysis and professional conduct

On the defamation aspect, the court applied Québec civil law principles of extra-contractual liability (art. 1457 C.c.Q.) and the protections of reputation under the Civil Code and the Charter of human rights and freedoms. The judge reviewed the three typical fault scenarios in defamation: knowingly false statements, negligent dissemination of false statements, and the unjustified disclosure of unfavourable but true information. The first two categories were quickly rejected because Polyzos had not shown that the content of the 2010 La Presse article was false; he simply disagreed with the prior court’s findings and the journalist’s investigation, but offered no proof that those findings were inaccurate. Boyer was not the author of the article, nor did he endorse the journalist’s statements as his own; he merely appended the link and asked if the notary was the same individual described there. The case therefore turned on whether Boyer, in a private email exchange within the transactional circle, had “just motives” to raise and share this information, or whether he was abusing the situation to smear Polyzos. The judge examined the full email context and found that it was the notary, not the broker, who first adopted an uncivil and accusatory tone. Polyzos repeatedly and wrongly suggested that Boyer had negligently put the seller at risk by failing to order the certificate in time, and he insisted on a $5,000 holdback as though it were a universal practice, without having proven that such a holdback formed part of any general, binding usage in the profession. He also disparaged Boyer’s competence in front of the seller. Evidence from both brokers and the replacement notary showed that there was no established obligation to demand a holdback in addition to title insurance in such circumstances. Against this backdrop, the court accepted Boyer’s explanation that he searched online to better understand with whom he was dealing after receiving sharply worded messages from Polyzos. Upon discovering the old article, Boyer was legitimately concerned about the notary’s insistence on controlling a substantial holdback, especially given his responsibility to protect a vulnerable seller-client. He regarded aspects of the article—particularly comments about ambiguity, aggressiveness and “manoeuvres douteuses”—as echoing the behaviour he was observing in the email exchange. The court found that Boyer’s primary motivation was to safeguard his client, and to inform the buyer’s broker about a conflict that threatened the completion of a $1.175 million transaction, not to gratuitously humiliate the notary. The email was clearly a maladroit way to proceed, and the court acknowledged that the link to the article would be hurtful to Polyzos. Nevertheless, it concluded that, in the specific private and limited context (seller and buyer’s broker only), Boyer had sufficient just reasons to pose the question and share the link. As a result, the elements of fault and unjustified attack on reputation were not made out, either under defamation doctrine or as a professional fault.

Assessment of alleged ethical breaches

On the professional liability side, Polyzos argued that Boyer had breached his broker’s code by failing to act with prudence, diligence, probity, courtesy, collaboration, objectivity and moderation. The court recalled that both men were subject to their own ethical frameworks: the broker under the real estate brokerage regulations, and the notary under the Code of ethics of notaries. The judge noted that, while the initial exchanges were professional, it was the accusatory tone and unfounded reproaches in the notary’s emails that significantly poisoned relations. Given this, Boyer’s decision to check the notary’s background and to question whether he was the same professional described in a published judgment and article—information of potential relevance to a large financial transaction—could not, in itself, be deemed a failure of prudence or probity. The court stressed that incivility alone does not automatically amount to a disciplinary fault. It also highlighted that any reputational sting came primarily from the content of the 2010 article itself, which remained publicly accessible and was not created by Boyer. The distribution of the contested email was limited: there was no evidence that the buyer, the buyer’s spouse or members of the Greek community were included in the email chain or later received it. The court characterised the situation as an unpleasant professional dispute between two practitioners, not as a disciplinary breach justifying civil liability.

Proof of damages and causation

Even if a fault had been established, the notary still had to prove actual prejudice and a causal link to the email. On compensatory damages, the court found the evidence “far from probative”. Polyzos claimed loss of reputation in the Greek community, loss of existing and future mandates and significant emotional distress. Yet he was the sole witness to these alleged losses: the buyer, his spouse, her mother and any other members of the community did not testify. Hearsay about their reactions was excluded. There was no documentary or expert evidence of a downturn in income or missed business opportunities. The only clearly established loss was that he did not act as notary in this particular sale, but the court concluded that the principal reason was his own inflexible insistence on a non-contractual holdback that the seller refused, rather than the broker’s email or the article. The judge accepted that the situation caused Polyzos personal stress, humiliation and discouragement, especially after years spent rebuilding his reputation, but found that he had materially contributed to the conflict through his own tone and demands. The court ultimately ruled that he had not shown, on a balance of probabilities, that the email had caused the reputational and financial harm he alleged, or that the alleged defamatory content had spread beyond the two brokers and the seller.

Punitive damages and mental element

Regarding punitive damages, sought under the Charter for an intentional and unlawful attack on reputation, the court reiterated that the required mental element is more demanding than simple negligence or even gross carelessness. The claimant must show that the defendant intended to cause the harmful consequences or acted in full knowledge that such consequences were almost certain. In this case, the judge held that Polyzos had not demonstrated any such state of mind on Boyer’s part. At most, Boyer’s conduct was clumsy and incivil, not a calculated attempt to destroy the notary’s reputation. Because no underlying civil fault was found and the requisite intention was lacking, the claim for $5,000 in punitive damages was rejected.

Abuse of procedure allegations on both sides

Both sides also invoked abuse of procedure. Boyer and his brokerage argued that Polyzos’s action was frivolous, part of a campaign to silence and punish them, and that it lacked any reasonable prospect of success. They pointed to the fact that, in parallel, Polyzos had filed a disciplinary complaint with the OACIQ which resulted in no action. The court reviewed Québec jurisprudence on abusive proceedings under article 51 C.p.c., emphasising that the “bar” for abuse is set high to avoid discouraging access to justice. While the notary’s claim was ultimately unfounded, it was not obviously hopeless on its face; it raised legitimate questions about the limits of acceptable professional criticism and the circulation of negative media reports. The court therefore refused to characterise it as harassment, a vendetta, or a misuse of the courts. The reconventional claim by Boyer and his agency for $13,685.33 in extrajudicial fees was dismissed. In response, Polyzos’s own allegation that the defence and reconventional demand were abusive also failed. The court found that, although the counterclaim did not succeed, it did not rise to the level of an abuse of rights, and it was appropriate that the parties litigate these issues to resolution. His request for additional damages and lawyer’s fees on that basis was therefore also rejected.

Overall outcome and financial consequences

In the result, the Court of Québec dismissed all substantive monetary claims. Polyzos’s main action for $12,500 in compensatory damages and $5,000 in punitive damages against Boyer and Groupe Sutton sur l’île R. Boyer Inc. was rejected. The defendants’ reconventional demand for $13,685.33 in extrajudicial fees and related relief was likewise rejected, as was the notary’s counter-allegation of abuse of procedure and his associated claims for damages and reimbursement of his own legal fees. The judgment awarded only ordinary court costs (“frais de justice”) in favour of the successful party on each respective claim: Boyer and his brokerage on the main action, and Polyzos on the reconventional action. No compensatory or punitive damages were granted, and the decision does not specify exact monetary amounts for the taxable court costs, so the total financial award in favour of either party cannot be precisely determined from the judgment.