Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Guylain Laframboise occupied a structure on Crown land in the canton of Rouyn without holding any property right, lease, or permit of occupation.
• Under Articles 54 and following of the Loi sur les terres du domaine de l'État, the Attorney General of Québec sought a court order compelling the defendant to vacate and restore the site.
• Despite multiple ministerial notices issued between 2018 and 2024, the defendant continued to occupy the land without authorization.
• A search of the Registre du domaine de l'État confirmed the defendant held no legal entitlement to the emplacement as of May 27, 2025.
• Laframboise was duly served with the originating application but failed to appear or contest the proceedings, resulting in a default.
• Failure to comply with the court's order within ten days would result in all property on the site devolving to the State without compensation.

Facts of the case

On March 22, 2018, the City of Rouyn-Noranda identified a chalet-type structure erected on an undivided portion of the canton of Rouyn, identified under feuillet 32D02-0201 of the Quebec cartographic reference system, at MTM coordinates, zone 10, forming part of the public domain. Following this discovery, the City affixed a notice of taking possession in accordance with the Loi sur les terres du domaine de l'État (the "Act"). On September 4, 2018, Guylain Laframboise contacted the City by telephone, declaring himself the owner of the structure on the site.

Statutory framework and ministerial notices

The applicable legislation is the Loi sur les terres du domaine de l'État, RLRQ, c. T-8.1, specifically Articles 54 and following, which govern unauthorized occupation of Crown land and provide the mechanism for obtaining a court order of abandonment (délaissement). On September 12, 2018, the Minister notified the defendant that he was required to vacate the site and return it to a satisfactory condition no later than October 27, 2018. On December 14, 2018, the Minister sent a follow-up letter requesting that the defendant submit a "Déclaration de libération des lieux" no later than January 15, 2019.

Reasoning and analysis

The defendant did not comply. On December 8, 2023, the Minister confirmed through an inspection report dated January 4, 2024, that Laframboise continued to occupy the emplacement. A formal notice (mise en demeure) was issued on January 30, 2024, demanding he cease occupying the land and remove all structures and property before March 8, 2024. A further inspection on May 5, 2025 confirmed the defendant was still in occupation. An extract from the Registre du domaine de l'État, compiled by the Ministère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts on May 27, 2025, confirmed that the defendant held no property right, lease, or permit of occupation over the site. The originating application was filed on April 16, 2026 and served on the defendant on April 30, 2026. The defendant was duly served but did not appear at the hearing held on May 19, 2026, and his default was recorded. After reviewing the procedure and evidence, the Court found the application well-founded in law.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Québec Superior Court, per the Honourable Nathalie Pelletier, J.C.S., granted the application in full on May 28, 2026. The Attorney General of Québec was the successful party. The Court ordered Laframboise to vacate the emplacement and deliver possession to the Minister or any person authorized by him within ten days of the judgment becoming enforceable, and to remove all structures and property within the same period. Should he fail to comply, the Attorney General was authorized to carry out or commission the necessary restoration works within three years of the judgment becoming enforceable, at the defendant's expense. The Court further declared that, on the tenth day following enforceability, all movable and immovable property remaining on the site would devolve without compensation and in full ownership to the State. Costs were awarded against the defendant; however, no specific monetary amount was stated in the judgment.