Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Civil procedure – Compulsory execution – Seizure in execution – Motion to oppose seizure – Executory condemnation – Establishment of balance – Whether clerk of Superior Court can lawfully issue writ of seizure of person’s property in execution even though judgment for which execution sought contains no condemnation, except to costs, since it contains only declaratory conclusion in relation to third party – Whether opposition to seizure under art. 596 C.C.P. is useful proceeding to have seizure annulled and dismissed.

In October 2009, Barakett J. of the Superior Court ordered the liquidation of an undeclared partnership that had existed between the applicant Jacques Thibault and the respondent Daniel Cloutier. According to the conclusions of the judgment, Mr. Thibault had to render an account of his administration of the partnership and its property, since the judge found that he had unlawfully profited from an invention of Mr. Cloutier’s (2009 QCCS 4881).

Following the judgment rendered by Émond J. in February 2013 on the proceeding for an accounting (2013 QCCS 673), a writ of seizure of immovable property in execution was issued in June 2014 against the property of Mr. Thibault, who filed a motion to oppose the seizure. He argued that Émond J.’s judgment contained no condemnation or conclusion against him, since the main conclusion concerned the profits generated by his spouse’s company ($110,816), which had produced and marketed the invention in question. He argued that he had not personally received any profits and that the $110,816 and the $6,466.80 in interest therefore had to be withdrawn from the writ of seizure by garnishment.