Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The defendant sought revocation of a $258,315.15 default judgment on the basis that it never received notice of the underlying proceeding.
   
• Admissibility at the presentation stage required the court to treat all allegations in the application as true without weighing contrary evidence.
   
• Timeliness under article 347 C.C.P. depended on whether email notification to opposing counsel satisfied the 30-day deadline.
   
• Validity of the supporting sworn declaration was contested over an elected-domicile address and an electronic rather than handwritten signature.
   
• Exclusion of the plaintiff's text-message and docket exhibits at this stage prevented the court from assessing whether the defendant had prior knowledge of the suit.
   
• Seriousness of the defendant's proposed defence, centered on product quality and packaging deficiencies, supported admissibility of the revocation application.
   

Facts of the case

P.K. Overseas PVT Ltd. sued Tigris Tigers Group Inc. in Quebec Superior Court for the price of goods sold and delivered. Unable to serve the defendant at a physical establishment, the plaintiff obtained court authorization to notify the originating application by email, which it did on August 6, 2025. The defendant did not respond, and on January 19, 2026 the plaintiff obtained a default judgment for $258,315.15, plus interest, the additional indemnity, and legal costs. According to the defendant's application for revocation, its president, Mohammed Kubah, only became aware of the judgment on April 18, 2026. The defendant notified its application to revoke the judgment on May 19, 2026, and later supplemented its allegations with a sworn declaration from Mr. Kubah dated July 6, 2026, which the plaintiff consented to having the court consider at the presentation stage.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The application turned on several provisions of Quebec's Code of Civil Procedure. Article 348 C.C.P. governs the conduct of a revocation application and, if the court finds it admissible, restores the parties to their prior procedural state and suspends execution of the impugned judgment. Article 347 C.C.P. sets a mandatory time limit for notifying a revocation application. Article 105 C.C.P. requires that a sworn declaration state the declarant's "name and address," and the plaintiff argued this required a residential address rather than an elected domicile; the court found article 105 does not require domicile or residence, distinguishing it from article 95 C.C.P., and noted article 128 C.C.P. permits notification at an elected domicile. The plaintiff also challenged the declaration's electronic signature, which the court considered against Quebec's legal framework for information technology, recognizing that such signatures may be valid depending on the circumstances.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Forlini emphasized that the presentation stage of a revocation application is a screening exercise, not a determination on the merits. Citing the Court of Appeal's decision in Canadian Royalties, the court explained that at this stage a judge need only confirm compliance with time limits and assess whether the grounds for revocation and defence arguments appear serious on their face, without weighing evidence from the party opposing the application. Applying this standard, the court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the supporting sworn declaration was invalid, finding no defect of form in either the elected-domicile address or the electronic signature. Turning to timeliness, the court accepted that the application was notified within 30 days of the defendant learning of the judgment, and noted the plaintiff did not dispute that email service on counsel was adequate. On the substance of the revocation ground, the court held it could not consider a text message or a docket entry that the plaintiff sought to introduce to show the defendant had prior knowledge of the proceeding, since such extrinsic evidence is inadmissible at the presentation stage. Taking the defendant's allegations as true — that Mr. Kubah never received the originating application and had no knowledge of the proceeding before April 2026 — the court found the ground for revocation was not frivolous, adding that even if the disputed text message had been considered, it would not have established prior knowledge. The court also found the defendant's proposed defence, based on alleged deficiencies in the quality and packaging of the goods and a dispute over the amount claimed, to be serious on its face and unopposed by the plaintiff on that point.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court declared the defendant's application for revocation admissible at the presentation stage and stayed execution of the January 19, 2026 default judgment. It left the parties to determine whether the revocation application and the original proceeding would be heard together or in separate stages, setting corresponding deadlines: 15 days to notify a new notice of presentation if proceeding in two stages, 30 days to file a new case protocol if proceeding in a single stage, or 15 days to notify a case management notice if the parties cannot agree. No amount was awarded or ordered in this judgment — the ruling addressed only the admissibility of the revocation application and related procedural steps, without disturbing or quantifying the underlying $258,315.15 default judgment, which remains suspended pending further proceedings. The judgment was rendered without legal costs.