2023 QCCQ 6154, 2023 QCCQ 6154

Compagnie Crédit Ford du Canada c. Ernest 2023 QCCQ 6154 COURT DU QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF TÉMISCAMINGUE TOWN OF VILLE-MARIE « Civil Division » N° : 610-22-000552-232 DATE : September 11, 2023 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JEAN-PIERRE GERVAIS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ COMPAGNIE CRÉDIT FORD DU CANADA Plaintiff c.

MICHELLE ERNEST Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On May 16, 2023 Compagnie Crédit Ford Du Canada (hereafter Ford Credit) instituted an action seeking to be declared the sole owner of a motor vehicle in the possession of the defendant Michelle Ernest. [ 2 ] At the same time the plaintiff following

section 517 of the Code of Civil Procedure proceed to seized before judgement the said vehicle. [ 3 ] The defendant opposed to that and ask the tribunal to quash the seizure and ordered the vehicle to be returned to her. [ 4 ] The application of Ms. Ernest was first took under advisement. By the same occasion the defendant was ordered to collaborate in the preparation of a draft protocol and to submit her means of defence within 14 days. [ 5 ] The plaintiff therefore sends a draft case protocol to the defendant which return it with only the phrase « without prejudice. »

The document doesn’t state any grounds of contestation. [ 6 ] In reaction to this the plaintiff filed a case management notice which was duly served to the defendant. [ 7 ] Considering the lack of defence and collaboration of Ms.

Ernest, Ford Credit is asking the court to proceed by default and grant the demand. [ 8 ] Even if notified the defendant is absent with the consequence that the case proceed without her. [ 9 ] The demand originating a proceeding, the affidavit of the representative of the plaintiff and the exhibits explain provide the following information. [ 10 ] On September 18, 2020, the defendant purchases from Oak Ridge Ford Sales

(1981) Limited a 2020, Ford F-150, bearing vehicle identification, number 1FTEW1E5XLKE53212, pursuant to a retail instalment contract for a purchase price of $48,991,94 payable by 182 bi-weekly payments of $ 294,64. [ 11 ] On the same date the vendor assigns its rights in the vehicle and in the retail instalment contract to the plaintiff. [ 12 ] Since January 2023, the defendant has not made any payment with the consequence that the plaintiff had served to her a notice of repossession in accordance with

section 139 of the Consumer Protection Act [1] . [ 13 ] Ms. Ernest did not remedy the default by paying the amount due. [ 14 ] So the plaintiff instituted an action to repossess the vehicle and to be declared as the sole owner. [ 15 ] The court concludes that proof has been made of the essential allegations of the demand and considering the absence of a defence.

[ 16 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 17 ] GRANTS plaintiff's originating application; [ 18 ] DECLARES good and valid the seizure before judgement of the vehicle more fully describe as follow: 2020, Ford F-150, bearing vehicle identification, number 1FTEW1E5XLKE53212 [ 19 ] DECLARES the plaintiff's the sole owner of the vehicle; [ 20 ] Which legal costs . __________________________________ Jean-Pierre Gervais, J.C.Q. Mtre Yixin Liu SAVOIE JOUBERT, LL.P. Attorneys for the Plaintiff Ms. Michelle Ernest Personally Date of hearing : August 24, 2023