This Week at the SCC: Seizure Interrupting Prescription

Editor’s Note: This post was written as a preview of an upcoming Supreme Court of Canada decision for the Fantasy Courts website and newsletter. Photo by Ryul Davidson on Unsplash

⌛ On Friday, October 10, 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada will release its decision in Mohawk Council of Kanesatake v. Sylvestre, et al. At issue is whether serving a notice of execution, even when no property is actually seized, interrupts the ten-year prescription period for enforcing a judgment, and how section 89 of the Indian Act affects that analysis.

🌳 On September 19, 2025, the SCC released its decision in Kosicki v. Toronto (City), 2025 SCC 28. In a 5:4 split, the majority allowed the appeal, holding that a couple became the owners of a strip of city parkland behind their home through adverse possession. Only 11% of players correctly predicted the result!

🔮 Head over to Fantasy Courts to lock in your predictions for this week’s decision, or read more about the case below. A recap of the decisions we missed this summer follows.

Case to Predict: When Does a Seizure Interrupt Prescription?

Appeal by leave from Mohawk Council of Kanesatake c. Sylvestre, 2023 QCCA 1603

📄 SCC factums and webcast 🎥

What Happened?

Between 2001 and 2003, the Mohawk Council of Kanesatake (MCK) retained lawyer Louis-Victor Sylvestre and several experts to oppose a mining project in Oka. When MCK couldn’t pay, the professionals obtained default judgments in 2004 totaling nearly $700,000.

Over the next decade, the creditors made multiple attempts to collect. In 2016, they served a notice of execution authorizing a bailiff to seize MCK’s movable property. The bailiff, however, determined that all property was exempt under s. 89 of the Indian Act, and no seizure occurred.

MCK later argued that the ten-year prescriptive period to enforce the judgments had expired because there was never an actual seizure. Both the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal disagreed, holding that merely serving the notice of execution was enough to interrupt prescription.

What Was Argued at the SCC?

Appellant (Mohawk Council of Kanesatake): MCK says this case is about the procedural rights of debtors in enforcement proceedings. A seizure — successful or not — must be documented and notified to the debtor; otherwise, they lose their right to challenge it and unknowingly extend the creditor’s judgment by ten more years. Allowing an “invisible” seizure to interrupt prescription undermines fairness, notice, and transparency in Quebec civil law. The lower courts’ approach penalizes debtors whose property happens to be exempt under the Indian Act.

Respondents (Sylvestre et al.): The respondents argue that the facts are undisputed: the MCK has long acknowledged the debt and participated in post-judgment proceedings. The 2016 notice of execution was a proper judicial act that interrupted prescription under article 2892 C.C.Q., even if no assets were seized. They maintain that the bailiff’s decision to suspend proceedings was reasonable and that MCK suffered no prejudice — it always knew about the debt and the enforcement steps taken.

What Else Should You Know Before Making a Prediction?

This case pits procedural fairness against finality for creditors. If the SCC sides with MCK, it could tighten the standards for what qualifies as an “interruption of prescription,” forcing clearer documentation in Quebec enforcement law. If it sides with the respondents, it will affirm a more flexible approach, ensuring creditors aren’t penalized when seizures fail due to statutory exemptions. Given the SCC’s past reluctance to disturb Quebec’s settled civil-law interpretation absent clear error, I’m leaning toward the appeal being dismissed.

Previous Case Recap: Kosicki v. Toronto

Kosicki v. Toronto (City), 2025 SCC 28
Held (5:4): Appeal allowed. The couple became owners of a strip of city parkland through adverse possession.

Key points:

• No judge-made rule bars adverse possession over municipal parkland.
• The Real Property Limitation Act governs such claims. It exempts certain public lands, but not municipal parkland.
• Adverse possession rights that vested before Ontario’s 2001 land-title reforms remain valid.

📊 Only 11% of Fantasy Courts players predicted correctly!

Thanks for reading and playing Fantasy Courts. If you liked today’s newsletter, we’d love for you to share it with a friend, or you can sign up to receive it as an email: https://mailchi.mp/37b20ffd0198/fantasycourts

-Tom Slade