Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Yvon Roy sought retraction of a default judgment rendered against him on March 3, 2026, ordering him to pay $13,267.46 to the CNESST.
• Central to the retraction application was whether Roy had been prevented from defending himself by surprise or another sufficient cause under Article 346 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
• Contested was Roy's role and duration as administrator of 9365-8342 Québec inc., the basis for his personal liability for the company's unpaid wages.
• Evidence suggested Roy's appointment as administrator may not have been authorized by him, as the 2022 annual declaration was signed by a third party, Martin Rivest, not by Roy.
• Roy relied on communications with a third party known as Manny Katz, claiming Katz undertook to manage his defence, though no formal commitment was found in those communications.
• Applying the "communicating vessels" doctrine, the court found Roy's defence arguments sufficiently serious to outweigh his procedural negligence.

Facts of the case

The Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CNESST) brought an action against Yvon Roy, identifying him as an administrator of 9365-8342 Québec inc. (the company) as of May 21, 2022. The company owed the CNESST $18,413.46 in unpaid wages to its employees, a debt established by a prior judgment of the Court of Québec. Unable to enforce that judgment against the company, the CNESST turned to Roy personally. Prior to filing suit, the CNESST sent Roy a formal demand by registered mail dated September 19, 2025, requiring him to pay part of the company's debt. The originating application was then served on Roy by a bailiff at his residence on December 12, 2025. Roy did not file a personal response within the legal deadlines and did not otherwise communicate with the CNESST. A default judgment was rendered against him on March 3, 2026, by Special Clerk Me Juliana Dalia, ordering Roy to pay $13,267.46, plus interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity from September 18, 2025 — the date the formal demand was mailed to him.

Statutory and legal framework

Roy's personal liability rested on Article 113 of the Act respecting labour standards, which establishes the conditions under which directors of a company may be held liable for that type of corporate debt. The retraction application was governed by Articles 346 and 347 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which set out both the grounds for retraction — being prevented from defending by surprise or another sufficient cause — and the procedural deadlines for bringing such an application, which the CNESST conceded Roy had respected.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The court acknowledged that Roy's explanations for his failure to respond were weak in certain respects. Although he claimed to have relied on a third party, Manny Katz, whom he described as the "real administrator" of the company and who allegedly agreed to take charge of his defence, the electronic communications Roy produced showed only a discussion of the situation — not a formal commitment to act on his behalf. Roy also claimed to have taken steps to find a lawyer after being served, but those efforts spanned only a few days, from December 13 to 18, 2025. He further attributed part of his inaction to the holiday season. The court noted that Roy had been condemned by default without having communicated with the CNESST in any way, and characterized his explanations as amounting to inadvertence, confusion, or a sincere but foolish error — language drawn from the Court of Appeal's decision in Groupe JSV inc. c. Goal Capital inc., 2014 QCCA 398.

Turning to the merits of Roy's proposed defence, the court found them sufficiently serious to tip the balance in his favour. Roy disputed the legitimacy of his designation as president of the company in the enterprise register. He produced the company's 2022 annual declaration, which recorded his directorship as beginning May 21, 2022, but which was signed not by Roy but by a third party, Martin Rivest — who simultaneously removed himself as administrator in the same declaration. Roy also produced an email he sent to Katz dated September 19, 2022, announcing his resignation as president of the company. Further, a statement of information from the enterprise register dated March 30, 2026 showed in its history that Roy served as president only from May 21 to June 22, 2022. Roy had also recently filed a request for deletion of his registration with the Registrar of Enterprises of Québec, dated March 26, 2026. The court applied the "communicating vessels" doctrine established by the Court of Appeal, under which the more serious a defendant's proposed defences, the more plausible and acceptable the explanations for the default become. Since the duration of Roy's directorship was the very foundation of his alleged liability for the unpaid wages, and since that duration was genuinely uncertain on the evidence, the court found that a trial on the merits was necessary to resolve the matter.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court granted Roy's retraction application, set aside the default judgment of March 3, 2026, and suspended all forced execution of that judgment. Roy was the successful party in this retraction proceeding. Costs were reserved to follow the outcome of the main action. No monetary amount was awarded or ordered in this decision; the retraction simply restored Roy's right to contest the CNESST's original claim at a full hearing on the merits.