PRACTICE |
Judgments and Orders |
Enforcement |
Nolan v. Silex International Chemical Systems Inc.
T-1108-94
Lemieux J.
10/5/00
18 pp.
Appeal from order by Lafrenière P. dismissing motion to quash distribution of proceeds of court sale of movable property of debtor Silex International Chemical Systems Inc., defendant in principal action--Motion filed by Business Development Bank of Canada (BDB)--BDB not party to principal action and only intervened as creditor of Silex--In October 1998, Court rendered judgment awarding plaintiff Nolan $96,000 against defendants Silex and René St-Pierre--Pursuant to that judgment, writ of seizure in execution issued against movable and immovable property of Silex--Bailiff proceeded to seize and sell movable property of Silex--At court sale by bailiff majority of movable property of Silex sold for gross amount of $72,000--Under Code of Civil Procedure, (C.C.P.) art. 604, Silex's hypothecary creditors had until May 7, 1999 to submit to seizing bailiff statement of their claim supported by affidavit and necessary vouchers--As of May 7, 1999, BDB had still not filed documents required in bailiff's office or served them on Silex--On May 25, 1999, BDB informed proceeds of court sale of Silex's movable property awarded to plaintiff Nolan--Seizing bailiff correctly awarded proceeds of sale of said property to seizing creditor Nolan in accordance with C.C.P., art. 613--Applicable procedure that of C.C.P., since seizure of Silex's movable property made in province of Quebec--Rules of interpretation, based on coherence of law, applicable in Quebec civil law--Seizing bailiff observed procedure laid down in C.C.P., arts. 592.2 and 592.3--Accepting interpretation suggested by BDB would disregard C.C.P., art. 604--Latter imposes on hypothecary and prior creditors having rights over seized property sold duty to submit statement of claim to seizing official within 10 days of sale, supported by affidavit and necessary vouchers--Existence of duty relating to filing of statement of claim and other documents confirmed by interrelationship of C.C.P., arts. 604 and 615--Fact hypothecary or prior creditor did not observe requirements of C.C.P. results in exclusion from distribution of proceeds of sale of seized property--Prothonotary properly interpreted provisions of C.C.P. as a whole--Appeal dismissed--Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q., c. C-25, arts. 592.2, 592.3, 604, 613, 615.