Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• QMD sought to annul a default judgment ordering it to pay Maxi-Forêt $23,000 for unpaid materials.
   
• Service on QMD was challenged on the basis that the recipient was not an officer, director, or employee of the company.
   
• A late affidavit submitted the day before the hearing was objected to and ultimately excluded.
   
• Article 347 C.p.c. imposes a strict 30-day deadline to serve a motion to annul, which QMD failed to meet with proper proof.
   
• No sworn evidence supported QMD's claims regarding the winter shutdown or lack of professional courtesy in seeking default judgment.
   
• Although QMD's proposed defence based on defective materials appeared arguable, it too lacked affidavit support.
   

Facts of the case

Maxi-Forêt inc. obtained a default judgment against Les Entreprises QMD inc. on March 30, 2026, ordering QMD to pay $23,000 for materials sold and delivered but not paid for. QMD subsequently brought a motion to annul that judgment (pourvoi en rétractation), arguing it had never been properly served. According to QMD, the bailiff delivered the originating application to Pierre-Hugues Lanneville, a person QMD says is not one of its officers, directors, or employees, but rather a former employee of a separate company, Dev-Méta inc., which shares premises with QMD. QMD also pointed to the timing of service, which occurred four days before the construction industry's mandatory winter shutdown, and argued that Maxi-Forêt's counsel should have alerted QMD's lawyer before entering default judgment, given that counsel was already representing QMD in a related, suspended file. QMD further claimed it had a serious defence: an intended cross-claim alleging Maxi-Forêt delivered defective materials, which QMD says caused it $36,576 in costs that could offset the amount claimed.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The case turned on several provisions of Québec's Code of Civil Procedure. Article 347 C.p.c. requires that a motion to annul a judgment be served within 30 days of the party learning of the judgment, presented to the court within 30 days of service, and never more than six months after the judgment — deadlines the article expressly designates as strict. Article 101(3) C.p.c. requires that any application relying on facts not otherwise in the record be supported by an affidavit from the person alleging those facts, and article 105 C.p.c. specifies that the affiant must be someone able to attest to the truth of the alleged facts and be examined on them. Article 84 C.p.c. sets out the standard for being relieved of a missed deadline, requiring proof of a factual impossibility to act sooner. Article 125 C.p.c. governs service on a corporation, permitting delivery to anyone who appears able to pass the document to an officer, director, or agent of the company. Article 346 C.p.c. establishes the underlying test for annulling a default judgment, requiring that the party show it was prevented from defending itself by fraud, surprise, or another sufficient cause, and that it disclose the proposed defence to the original claim.

Reasoning and analysis

The court found that QMD could not cure its missing affidavit after the 30-day deadline under article 347 C.p.c. had expired. Citing prior case law, the court held that permitting such a correction outside the prescribed deadlines would defeat their strict character altogether. A brief affidavit from QMD's legal technician, sent to opposing counsel by email the evening before the hearing, was excluded on this basis; the court noted the outcome would have been the same regardless, given its narrow scope, since it addressed only 3 of the 39 paragraphs in QMD's motion. Without a valid affidavit establishing when QMD learned of the judgment, QMD could not demonstrate compliance with the 30-day service deadline, and emails offered in its place did not establish the relevant date. Turning to QMD's grounds for annulment, the court held none were prima facie serious: the claim of improper service failed because article 125 C.p.c. does not require delivery specifically to an officer, director, or employee, and the bailiff's certificate showed the requirements were met; the winter shutdown and professional courtesy arguments failed for lack of any supporting affidavit, leaving the court unable to assess their seriousness even on a preliminary basis. As for QMD's proposed defence concerning defective materials, the court observed it might otherwise have appeared prima facie serious, but it too was unsupported by any affidavit evidence.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court granted Maxi-Forêt's objection to the filing of the late affidavit and dismissed QMD's motion to annul the judgment, with legal costs. Maxi-Forêt was the successful party, and the underlying $23,000 default judgment for unpaid materials therefore stands; the amount of costs awarded on the motion itself was not specified in the decision