Marie-Alice D’Aoust

In this appeal, the Court considered whether a creditor’s unsuccessful seizure attempt still interrupts the 10-year extinctive prescription period for rights resulting from a judgment under Quebec civil law.

The Court held that filing and serving a notice of execution under the Code of Civil Procedure forms part of the judicial application for seizure and is sufficient to interrupt prescription under art. 2892 C.C.Q. even if no property is ultimately seized.

Because the seizure proceedings were suspended by a bailiff rather than dismissed by a court, art. 2894 C.C.Q. did not retroactively cancel the interruption.

The debtor’s prescription defence therefore failed.

The applicants, successful candidates in a First Nation election, sought judicial review of an Election Appeal Committee decision that overturned the results and ordered a new election.

The Court found the process procedurally unfair because the applicants did not receive personal notice of the appeals and were not afforded an opportunity to be heard before the Committee rendered its decision.

The decision was quashed and the matter remitted for reconsideration by a differently constituted Committee.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Matimekush-Lac John Innu Nation election Appeal Board invalidating the July 4, 2019, band council election.

The Appeal Board found the electoral officer failed to apply a residency requirement but provided no analysis or reference to the evidence regarding the chief-elect's residency, and improperly invalidated the election of the councillors against whom no complaints were made.

The Federal Court allowed the application, set aside the Appeal Board's decision, declared the four councillors duly elected, and remitted the issue of the chief-elect's eligibility to a newly constituted board.