An insured's electric vehicle catches fire. After indemnifying her, her insurer sues the manufacturer, seeking to recover the full amount of the loss. A default judgment is rendered, and the automaker applies to have it revoked, but its request is denied.

Intact Insurance Company appears before the Superior Court of Quebec on June 9 in Montreal, having duly served its originating application on the manufacturer, Tesla Motors Canada ULC. Tesla fails to respond to the summons and does not appear before the court.

The special clerk renders a default judgment. Tesla applies for a stay of execution and revocation of the judgment. Its arguments were heard by Justice Ian Demers on September 18. In its September 30, 2026, decision, only available in French, the court dismisses both applications.

The vehicle is a 2020 Tesla Model X P100D. The date of the loss is not specified in the judgment. The insurer's expert concluded that an electrical failure was responsible.

Application for a stay

In its application for a stay, the defendant argues that the proceedings were served at a service centre rather than at its elected domicile. The court finds this argument "moot".

The originating application was delivered to Tesla's principal establishment in Quebec, which forwarded it to the coordination team based in Palo Alto, California. The evidence does not explain what happened afterward. The notice of execution of the judgment followed the same route and reached its destination.

According to the Registraire des entreprises du Québec (Quebec Enterprise Register), the Tesla service location where Intact sent its application is the company's main establishment. According to Tesla's regional management, claims must be directed to the Gowling law firm. "If that is the case, it is paradoxical, to say the least, that she does not provide the source of this directive. I do not see how Intact could have known about it," Justice Demers writes.

Nor was it the insurer's responsibility, contrary to what the regional manager suggests, to respond to the summons. The obligation to respond to an originating application rests with the defendant, failing which it may be condemned by default, with legal costs, as provided under section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Section 180 of the Code also provides that, when a case has been set down for default following a failure to respond to a summons, the plaintiff may obtain judgment without further notice or delay. The defendant's sworn statement does not explain why it failed to respond to the summons, even though the default judgment reached its destination and prompted a response, namely the application for revocation under consideration.

No valid grounds

Justice Demers recalls the principles governing the assessment of an application to revoke a judgment. A party condemned by default must present its grounds of defence against the claim. The more substantial the grounds of defence, the more plausible and admissible the reasons for revocation become. Following its analysis, the court may grant the application for revocation and order the proceedings to resume.

In this case, the court finds that the defendant has not genuinely put forward grounds to support its application for revocation. The explanation consists of a single sentence in its sworn statement. According to Tesla, a vehicle fire is typically "caused by misuse or vandalism."

Although the court does not expect Tesla to prove an alternative cause in its preliminary submissions, it must at least support its assertion with data. If Intact's evidence is as weak as the defendant claims, "it can establish that at the preliminary stage."

In the absence of valid grounds justifying the revocation of the default judgment, Tesla's application is dismissed, with legal costs.