Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• 9461-8683 Québec inc. sought retraction of a February 17, 2026 default judgment, claiming it never received service of the originating application.
   
• Evidence showed that plaintiffs' counsel had emailed the proceeding and supporting exhibits to both the company and its lawyer, with delivery confirmations for each.
   
• Discrepancies emerged among the company's own exhibits regarding the price and scope of the roofing work, including inconsistent invoice, quote, and hypothec figures.
   
• No explanation was offered by the company for a roughly tenfold increase between its initial quote and the invoice it later relied on.
   
• Failure to comply with mandatory disclosure requirements under the Consumer Protection Act undermined the seriousness of the company's proposed defence.
   
• Ultimately, the court found the $6,684.07 deposit made with a notary to be a valid and discharging tender, resolving the interest dispute in the plaintiffs' favour.

?

?

Facts of the case

Renate Heidersdorf and Éric Graf hired 9461-8683 Québec inc., operating as "Toiture No Problem," to repair the roof of a building in Beaconsfield owned by Heidersdorf. An initial quote dated June 26, 2024 offered two options: a standard roofing system for $5,813.50 before taxes, or a superior-quality system for $6,976.20. The plaintiffs maintained they accepted the standard option. A later document dated July 17, 2024 described different, expanded work for $54,797.61 plus taxes ($63,003.55), bearing an incomplete signature attributed to Graf and typed initials "EG." The company subsequently issued an invoice for $73,150.02 plus taxes ($82,400.66) — nearly $18,500 more than even the July 17 quote — which, on analysis, proved to be a statement of account layering monthly interest at 24% onto a base charge of $61,773.81. The company also registered a legal hypothec against the property citing yet another figure, $71,024.47. The plaintiffs' engineer valued the work actually performed at $5,813.50 plus taxes ($6,684.07) and flagged that insulation and roof-envelope upgrades beyond the standard job may not have been justified. The plaintiffs sent a demand letter with a certified cheque for $6,684.07 marked "Full and Final payment," which the company received but never cashed. After more than six months passed without the company enforcing or acting on its hypothec, the plaintiffs sued for nullity of the contract, cancellation of the hypothec, and a declaration validating their tender. When the company failed to respond to the originating application — which had been served under sealed envelope with court authorization after a bailiff found the premises open at irregular hours — default judgment was entered against it on February 17, 2026, fixing the value of the work at $6,684.07 and awarding legal costs. The company then applied to retract that judgment, and the plaintiffs, along with Graf, contested the application.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The case turned on article 345 C.C.P. and article 568 C.C.P., governing retraction of judgment, which require that an application be filed within strict time limits, that the moving party show it was prevented from defending itself by fraud, surprise, or another sufficient cause, and that it raise defences that appear tenable. Article 116 C.C.P., permitting service under sealed envelope with court authorization, and article 111 C.C.P., regulating permissible service hours, were also central to the company's argument that service was improper. The plaintiffs' underlying claim relied on article 2727 C.C.Q., which extinguishes a legal construction hypothec if the holder fails, within six months, to publish an action against the property owner or register a prior notice of exercise of a hypothecary right. Sections 58 and 59 of the Consumer Protection Act, requiring specific mandatory contract disclosures — including a ten-day cancellation right — and delivery of a signed copy of the contract, were raised to show the company's defence lacked merit. On the question of tender, the court considered article 1672 C.C.Q. and following provisions on compensation, and section 3 of the Interest Act regarding the legal rate of interest applicable in the absence of a contractual rate.

Reasoning and analysis

The court found that the retraction application, though filed within the applicable time limits, failed on the two remaining conditions. On the question of whether the company was prevented from defending itself, the court held that negligence or carelessness in managing one's affairs generally bars retraction. Service under sealed envelope had been properly authorized after a bailiff confirmed the company operated at the address but kept irregular hours and had no one available to respond. Beyond that valid service, plaintiffs' counsel had also emailed the originating application and later the supporting exhibits directly to the company and to its own lawyer, with delivery receipts confirming both emails were received at the correct addresses; neither the company nor its counsel offered any explanation for failing to act on them. The court rejected the company's assertion that it was no longer operating from its head office, noting that its own representative used that same address in a sworn declaration and on a related court filing. Turning to the seriousness of the proposed defence, the court found the company's action on account — filed in a separate file — was not responsive to the plaintiffs' actual allegations of intimidation and abuse. The company failed to address claims that it obtained a partial signature under duress, withheld a paper copy of the contract despite repeated requests, prepared documents in Graf's name despite Heidersdorf owning the property, omitted mandatory Consumer Protection Act disclosures, and increased the scope and price of work by more than $56,200 without a further roof inspection. Nor did the company respond to the engineering report questioning the necessity of the additional work. On the tender question, the court applied Court of Appeal authority holding that formalism around tender and deposit has been relaxed, with the focus placed on whether the debtor acknowledges the debt and the funds are genuinely available. The plaintiffs had consistently acknowledged owing $6,684.07, attempted payment by certified cheque, and ultimately deposited that sum with a notary — all before the company ever sent a demand letter or attempted to enforce payment. The court further found that the 24% interest rate the company sought to apply had no contractual basis with respect to the standard-scope work the plaintiffs had actually accepted and were bound by, since the plaintiffs never consented to the expanded scope reflected in the later, higher-priced document.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court dismissed 9461-8683 Québec inc.'s application for retraction of the February 17, 2026 default judgment, finding that the company had not been prevented from defending itself by fraud, surprise, or other sufficient cause, and that its proposed defences did not appear serious. The court declared that the $6,684.07 deposit made by Renate Heidersdorf with notary Julie Sauvé constituted a valid and discharging tender, resolving the dispute in favour of the plaintiffs, Renate Heidersdorf and Éric Graf, and confirming they owed no further principal or interest beyond that deposited amount. Legal costs were awarded to the plaintiffs, with the judgment noting that the costs available to them on the record were estimated at no less than $346.27, subject to further detailing, though the deposited sum was found amply sufficient to cover any amount ultimately owed after accounting for compensation.