Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• This case concerns a property dispute over an agricultural lot located in Valcourt, Quebec.
   
• Ville de Valcourt sought a safeguard order to stop the Plaintiff's use of the disputed lot pending final judgment.
   
• Additionally, the municipality requested removal of all plantations and restoration of the land to its prior state.
   
• Plaintiff argued the application lacked urgency and that the status quo should be maintained.
   
• Evidence established that the Plaintiff and its predecessor had farmed the lot for years, mainly cultivating soybeans.
   
• Ultimately, the Court dismissed the safeguard order application, permitting continued agricultural use under specific conditions.
   

Facts of the case

The dispute concerns lot 1,824,069 of the Cadastre du Québec, which the Ville de Valcourt allegedly acquired by way of a deed of sale dated January 26, 2022. The plaintiff, Les Fermes David Couture inc., contests the municipality's ownership claim, arguing that it and its predecessor in title possessed the lot as owners for more than ten years and therefore acquired it by prescription. Because the plaintiff continues to use the lot, the municipality applied for a safeguard order requiring the plaintiff to stop all use or development of the property and to remove any plantings or improvements, restoring the land within five days of judgment. The plaintiff resisted the application, contending it was not urgent and that fairness favoured preserving the existing arrangement — namely, its continued cultivation of the lot — until the ownership dispute is finally resolved. The plaintiff offered, in the meantime, to refrain from any construction, tree-cutting, or change in the land's agricultural use.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

No specific legislative provisions or code articles are cited in the decision as the substantive basis for the safeguard order test. Rather, the Court applies a general, well-established principle governing interim relief at this stage of litigation: that priority should be given to preserving the status quo over imposing new terms of use on disputed property, in order to protect the parties' respective rights pending a final determination. A procedural footnote referencing article 334, paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure appears in the judgment, but it relates only to the correction of the transcript's form rather than to the merits of the safeguard order application.

Reasoning and analysis

The Court found that the Ville de Valcourt failed to establish the urgency required to justify a safeguard order. It noted that the underlying dispute had persisted for months, if not years, and that the municipality had numerous earlier opportunities to seek such relief but did not do so — undermining any claim of urgency. The evidence presented at the hearing did not change this conclusion. Beyond the absence of urgency, the Court relied on evidence that the plaintiff and its predecessor had occupied and cultivated the lot for several years, primarily for soybean production roughly six months annually. Applying the principle favouring preservation of the status quo during ongoing litigation, the Court concluded that maintaining the existing use of the land best protected both parties' interests. The Court also observed that the municipality could not pursue any development on the lot regardless, since no development could proceed before a final judgment with res judicata effect is rendered — further reducing any practical need for the safeguard order sought.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court dismissed the Ville de Valcourt's application for a safeguard order dated May 20, 2026. It took note of the plaintiff's undertaking to refrain from construction, tree-cutting, or any change in the land's agricultural use until a final judgment with res judicata effect is rendered between the parties. The plaintiff, Les Fermes David Couture inc., was the successful party on this application, and the Court ordered legal costs in its favour; the decision does not specify a monetary quantum for those costs.