Case in Brief

A Case in Brief is a short summary of a written decision of the Court, drafted in plain language. These summaries are prepared by staff of the Supreme Court of Canada. They do not form part of the Court’s reasons for judgment and are not for use in legal proceedings.

Mohawk Council of Kanesatake v. Sylvestre

Case summary

The Supreme Court of Canada says that a notice to seize property interrupts the 10-year deadline under Quebec law to collect payment on a judgment.

This case is about the deadline for enforcing payment under a judgment ordered by a Quebec court. That deadline is also known as “prescription” under the Civil Code of Québec and is set at 10 years. After the deadline passes, the right to collect is normally lost. This period can be interrupted if someone files a “judicial application”. When the deadline is interrupted, a new 10-year period starts to run from the date of the interruption. The question in this case is whether filing a notice of execution, the first step to seizing (taking) property, interrupts that 10-year deadline, even if no property is actually seized. Ordinarily, after the notice of execution, a bailiff, who is a court officer that enforces judgments, will take the property to sell it and pay off the debt owed under that judgment.

In the early 2000s, the Mohawk Council of Kanesatake owed money to a lawyer and other professionals for services provided (the creditors). They obtained default judgments against the Council. A default judgment is a court order made when one party does not defend itself in court. The debts were never paid despite the judgments. In 2016, the creditors filed and served a notice of execution to seize the Council’s property. However, the bailiff considered the Council’s property to be exempt from seizure and therefore did not take anything. The Council later argued that because no property was seized, the 10-year prescription was not interrupted and the period had since expired.

The Superior Court and the Court of Appeal of Quebec both rejected that argument. The Council then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

The 2016 notice of execution interrupted prescription.

Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Kasirer said that filing and serving a notice of execution counts as a judicial application that interrupts the 10-year prescription period. The creditors had filed their notice within that period. It did not matter that the bailiff later found nothing to be taken and suspended the seizure. It also did not matter that the bailiff did not notify the debtor that the seizure had been suspended.

Justice Kasirer explained that the 10-year period exists to ensure people act on time and to bring stability to debtor-creditor relations, but it should not punish creditors who take the right steps before the deadline. With this decision, the Court gave clarity and certainty to both creditors and debtors about how judgment debts can be enforced and what types of events can interrupt prescription.