Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Two family members opposed a seizure in execution conducted against a judgment debtor, each claiming ownership of specific seized items.
   
• Timeliness of the oppositions became a threshold issue, since neither opponent filed within the 15-day period set out in article 736 C.C.P.
   
• Neither opponent sought relief from her default, and no reasonable explanation for the delay was substantiated.
   
• Documentary evidence submitted by the wife, including an English-language bill of sale she could not read, was found to lack probative value.
   
• Bank records relating to the daughter's claimed ownership of a vehicle suggested the payments were actually funded by the debtor's company.
   
• Ultimately, both oppositions were dismissed for being untimely and, alternatively, for failing to establish ownership.
   

Facts of the case

MDX Logistique inc. and Muhammad Mallik were ordered by default judgment on October 22, 2025, to pay $46,650.20 to the CNESST. Following issuance of a notice of execution for $50,262.29, a seizure of property was carried out at Mr. Mallik's residence on May 20, 2026. Mr. Mallik opposed the seizure, supported by letters from his wife, Israt Jahan, and his daughter, Nivrita Mallik, each claiming ownership of certain seized items. That opposition was granted in part: the seizure of household items and a BMW vehicle was upheld, while a Honda Pilot, a laptop (recorded in the source as the "Lenvo [sic] laptop"), a computer, and a printer were released. In response, Ms. Jahan and Ms. Mallik each filed their own oppositions on June 15, 2026 — more than 15 days after the May 20 seizure. Ms. Jahan claimed ownership of the household furnishings, relying on an English-language "Deed of sale" she could not read, invoices for a television and an oven she could not identify at the hearing, and a notarial deed transferring her husband's share of the residence to her. Ms. Mallik claimed ownership of the seized BMW, relying on the registration, sale and financing contracts, and insurance documents in her name, along with bank statements produced after the hearing.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The oppositions turned on two provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Article 736 C.C.P. requires that an opposition to a seizure be served within 15 days of notification of the minutes of seizure. Article 735 C.C.P. permits a person to oppose a seizure or intended sale, and to seek annulment of the proceeding, if they can claim ownership of the seized property, in whole or in part. The CNESST argued that the 15-day period in article 736 C.C.P. is peremptory, such that late filing is fatal regardless of explanation.

Reasoning and analysis

The Court held that the time limit in article 736 C.C.P. is not peremptory, since the provision does not characterize it as such, departing from case law that had treated the delay as strict without explaining why. A party seeking an extension need not show it was impossible to act, but must show it acted reasonably and diligently, and must demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay. Neither Ms. Jahan nor Ms. Mallik asked to be relieved of their default, and the question was not addressed in their oppositions at all. Ms. Mallik's explanation — that a courthouse employee told her father that Mr. Mallik's opposition alone was sufficient — was rejected, both because courthouse counter staff are not authorized to give legal advice and because neither the date nor the identity of the employee could be verified. The Court noted that a reasonable person who chooses not to consult a lawyer must still take reasonable steps to inform themselves, and that the answer to who must oppose a seizure is set out in article 735 C.C.P. and is publicly available on the Government of Quebec's website. The Court added that Ms. Jahan's inability to read French or English made it especially unlikely that she had taken any independent steps to protect her rights. On the merits, the Court also found the opponents had not established ownership. Ms. Jahan's bill of sale was given no probative value: it was written in English, a language she cannot read, and the Court found it implausible that a husband and wife would communicate in a language she could not understand, concluding the document was likely drafted in response to the Court's earlier comments in the June 12 judgment. Ms. Jahan also could not identify the invoices for the television and oven at the hearing, never provided proof that the purchases were paid from her own funds, and never proved she had paid her husband for the furniture. The Court further noted that spouses living together should not be presumed to have unequal ownership of jointly used household property. As for the BMW, Ms. Mallik's bank statements showed that her father's company deposited funds into her account just before each bi-monthly loan payment was withdrawn, and that she otherwise held almost no money in that account, suggesting the payments were not truly hers. The Court also observed that the opposition regarding the BMW had not been served on BMW itself, despite the financing contract's retention of ownership clause and payment schedule running until 2031.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court dismissed both Israt Jahan's and Nivrita Mallik's oppositions to the seizure in execution carried out on May 20, 2026, finding that the oppositions were filed outside the 15-day period under article 736 C.C.P. without adequate explanation and that, in any event, neither opponent had established ownership of the property claimed. The CNESST, as the successful party defending the seizure, was awarded legal costs; the judgment does not specify a dollar amount for those costs.