Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Regulatory enforcement of the Food and Drugs Act against the sale and promotion of unapproved injectable peptide drugs to Canadian customers.
• Central question whether the Attorney General of Canada showed a strong prima facie right justifying interlocutory and provisional injunctions under section 21.5 of the Act.
• Evidence from Health Canada inspectors indicating continued online marketing, order-taking and inventory of unauthorized drugs despite a ministerial stop-sale order.
• Personal involvement and potential liability of Gary James Gaul, including his role with Canlab Research and Canlab International and his attempt to have the action against him dismissed.
• Public interest and serious or irreparable harm analysis focused on risks to public health versus the commercial inconvenience to the defendants.
• Scope and reach of injunctive relief over corporate defendants, their officers and agents, and related websites and platforms accessible by Canadian IP addresses.

Background and parties

This case arises from Health Canada’s efforts, through the Attorney General of Canada (PGC), to stop the sale and promotion of injectable peptide drugs that were not authorized under the federal Food and Drugs Act (Loi sur les aliments et drogues, “LAA”). The federal authorities alleged that a group of individuals and related corporations had been marketing these products as having medicinal benefits without the necessary regulatory approvals. The defendants are Jean-François Tremblay, a naturopath; Francine Legault; two Quebec corporations, 9369-1640 Québec inc. and 9334-2293 Québec inc.; and an individual associated with the businesses, Gary James Gaul. The corporate defendants operated under various business names, including Canlab Research and Concept Nature Plus–Canlab, and presented themselves as specializing in peptide research, development, and personalized naturopathic supplements. Over time, Canlab International LLC, a U.S. company managed by Mr. Gaul and based in Florida, also became part of the factual matrix, because it held inventory and maintained an online presence connected to the Canadian activities.

Statutory framework and enforcement powers

The PGC’s application relies primarily on section 21.5 of the Food and Drugs Act, which authorizes a court to grant an injunction when it concludes that there is an existing, imminent or probable act constituting an offence under the Act in relation to a therapeutic product, or an act tending to such an offence. Under this provision, the court may order a person to refrain from acts that may perpetuate the offence, or to take positive steps to prevent it. The key policy objective of the LAA, as recognized by the court, is the protection of the health and safety of the public by imposing standards for safety, quality and efficacy of therapeutic products before they may be marketed. In earlier proceedings (2024 QCCS 1281), the court had already discussed in more detail the statutory regime and the nature of the alleged contraventions, and on that basis issued a provisional injunction. The 2025 interlocutory judgment builds on that foundation, focusing on whether more durable interim relief should remain in place until a final decision on the merits.

Procedural history and the earlier decision

Before the 2025 interlocutory judgment, the PGC had already obtained urgent relief. In 2024, the Superior Court issued an initial provisional injunction in Procureur général du Canada c. Tremblay, 2024 QCCS 1281, based on the same underlying facts regarding unauthorized peptide drugs. Subsequently, on 6 November 2023, Health Canada issued a ministerial order directing the defendants to cease their promotion and sale of these unapproved drugs. Despite this order, the evidence showed that the defendants’ websites remained active and appeared to permit ongoing purchases of unauthorized products well into 2024. On 15 April 2025, Justice Piché granted a further interlocutory provisional injunction, followed by slightly modified safeguard orders on 25 April, which were then extended until the time of the present 2025 decision. During this period, the two corporate defendants sought protection under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and the PGC obtained leave in early 2025 to continue the regulatory injunction proceedings against them. Only Mr. Gaul formally defended at the interlocutory stage; the other individual defendants, Tremblay and Legault, did not appear, and the case proceeded by default against them and the companies.

Evidence of unauthorized drug activities

The evidentiary record, mainly in the form of sworn declarations from Health Canada inspectors and documentary exhibits, described an online and commercial operation centered on peptides sold or promoted as having therapeutic benefits. The authorities alleged that these products were “drugs” and “therapeutic products” under the Act, yet lacked the necessary authorization from Health Canada. Inspections and website reviews revealed that the defendants’ sites, including those operated by 9334-2293 Québec inc. (Canlab Research) and 9369-1640 Québec inc. (Concept Nature Plus–Canlab), remained accessible and allowed customers, including Canadians, to order injectable peptide products after the ministerial order. The court emphasized that the defendants appeared to have disregarded the order to stop selling and promoting these drugs. Moreover, when Health Canada identified the inventory of unauthorized products, the defendants stated that the stock belonged to Canlab International LLC, the Florida-based company managed by Mr. Gaul. Following the provisional injunction, 1,732 unauthorized products were turned over to bailiffs and placed under the custody of Health Canada.

Role and involvement of Gary James Gaul

A key contested issue at the interlocutory level concerned the status of Mr. Gaul. He sought dismissal of the claim against him, arguing that he was neither an employee, director, nor officer of the Quebec corporations and therefore should not be personally subject to the injunction. The court, however, examined the evidence and found a strong appearance that he played a decision-making role in the relevant activities. In October 2023, before and after the ministerial order, Mr. Gaul presented himself to Health Canada as CEO or Chief Restructuring Officer of Canlab Research and was formally appointed under a broad power of attorney signed by Mr. Tremblay. That authorization allowed him to correspond with Health Canada, access company records and take decisions in the best interest of Canlab Research and its compliance. In an affidavit dated April 2024, Gaul acknowledged that he was involved in reorganizing 9334-2293 Québec inc. and resolving the matter with Health Canada, although he denied involvement in sales. The court also noted that Canlab International LLC was created on 27 November 2023, shortly after the ministerial order, with Gaul as the sole manager. This entity was said to own all the peptide inventory previously identified by Health Canada. Later screenshots showed Canlab International’s website redirecting users to canlabresearch.com and Instagram posts that promoted peptide products and directed users to the Canlab Research site, reinforcing the impression of continuity between the businesses. On this record, the court concluded there was a strong prima facie case that Gaul was sufficiently involved to justify maintaining him as a defendant and subjecting him to injunctive orders, and therefore rejected his motion to dismiss.

Legal test for interlocutory injunction and its public law dimension

The Superior Court reviewed the general principles governing interlocutory injunctions in Quebec civil procedure. Ordinarily, a party seeking such relief must show (1) a serious or strong appearance of right, (2) a risk of serious or irreparable harm, and (3) that the balance of convenience (or balance of inconveniences) favors granting the injunction. Although the PGC relied on a Federal Court decision, Canada v. Ipsco Recycling Inc., interpreting a similar statutory injunction power under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Superior Court was reluctant to replace the Quebec interlocutory test with the Federal Court’s approach at this interim stage. Instead, it held that the traditional three-part test remained applicable, even where the injunction is expressly provided for in a statute such as the Food and Drugs Act. The court emphasized that, in public-law or penal-adjacent contexts, Quebec jurisprudence also requires a demonstration of an exceptional situation in which the public interest demands immediate court intervention before ordinary enforcement mechanisms are exhausted. This concern includes avoiding the use of contempt of court sanctions as an indirect way of imposing penalties that exceed those contemplated by the legislature. Nevertheless, the court recognized that where a statute expresses a clear public-interest standard—such as health protection under the Food and Drugs Act—that public interest will weigh heavily in the balance of convenience and often decisively favor granting an injunction when the other criteria are met.

Application of the test: appearance of right and serious harm

On the element of a strong appearance of right, the court considered the prior factual findings from the 2024 provisional decision together with the new evidence. It concluded that the Attorney General had demonstrated, at least on a preliminary basis, that the defendants were selling and promoting unauthorized injectable peptide drugs and had failed to comply with Health Canada’s ministerial order to stop. The evidence of ongoing web activity, the quantity of seized products, and the corporate and personal roles of each defendant—including Mr. Gaul’s documented involvement before and after the ministerial order—supported this conclusion. Regarding serious or irreparable harm, the court found that the very purpose of the LAA is to protect public health and safety by preventing the distribution of unapproved therapeutic products. Because these products had not been evaluated and authorized for safety, quality and efficacy, their continued sale and promotion posed a serious risk to the Canadian public. In such circumstances, harm is not adequately compensable by damages; once the products reach patients, any adverse health effects cannot be undone by monetary awards. This justified viewing the harm as serious and irreparable, and grounded a strong public-interest imperative to intervene.

Balance of convenience and need for continuing relief

When weighing the balance of convenience, the court compared the potential consequences of allowing apparently unlawful activities affecting public health to continue versus the commercial disruption to the defendants if their operations were curtailed pending trial. It concluded that no meaningful equilibrium existed: allowing ongoing sale and promotion of unauthorized injectable drugs presented unacceptable risks, whereas enjoining those activities primarily affected the defendants’ business model. The court also noted the practical difficulty of crafting conditions that would let the defendants continue to operate while reliably excluding unlawful conduct. Thus, the balance clearly favored maintaining strict injunctive controls until a final judgment on the merits.

Scope of the interlocutory injunction orders

The interlocutory judgment therefore grants broad relief. First, the court rejects Mr. Gaul’s motion to dismiss and takes note of his undertakings to modify the Canlab International website for Canadian users, including maintaining a geographic block that prevents orders from Canadian IP addresses and displaying notices to Canadians that the products cannot be ordered, purchased or shipped to Canada. The court orders him to continue complying with these undertakings until final judgment. Second, the court orders all defendants, and all directors, officers, representatives, mandataries and shareholders of 9369-1640 Québec inc. and 9334-2293 Québec inc., and any person under their control, to cease immediately: selling unauthorized drugs to Canadian billing or shipping addresses or for export from Canada; carrying out any licensable activities under the Food and Drug Regulations (such as manufacturing, packaging, testing, importing or distributing) without a Health Canada licence; and operating, using or managing any transactional or non-transactional websites or user-generated content platforms accessible via Canadian IP addresses that promote, offer, display or present unauthorized drugs. The orders specifically list several domains—www.canlab.net, www.canlabresearch.com, www.canlabsciences.com and canlabintl.com—while also prohibiting the creation or support of any similar sites or platforms targeting Canadians with unapproved drugs. Third, all seized products are to remain under the custody of Health Canada at its Longueuil office, in a secure room with restricted access, until the court decides the pending application for a permanent injunction. The interlocutory injunction is declared provisionally enforceable notwithstanding any appeal, and the court authorizes service of the order by any means on the defendants and their principals, to ensure its practical effectiveness. The court also extends by six months, to 28 January 2026, the time limit to inscribe the matter for hearing on the merits.

Outcome, successful party and monetary consequences

In the combined effect of the 2024 provisional decision and the 2025 interlocutory judgment, the Attorney General of Canada succeeds in obtaining sustained injunctive relief to halt the alleged unauthorized peptide drug activities pending a final determination. The court confirms the statutory enforcement powers under section 21.5 of the Food and Drugs Act, applies the traditional Quebec interlocutory-injunction test with a strong emphasis on public health, and brings within the scope of its orders not only the Quebec corporations and their principals but also the related U.S. entity’s Canadian-facing web presence. The successful party is the Attorney General of Canada, as the court dismisses Mr. Gaul’s motion to dismiss, grants the interlocutory injunction, and awards costs against the defendants. The judgment refers only to “frais de justice / costs” and does not specify any particular dollar amount of damages or quantified costs; based on the text of these decisions, the total monetary award in favor of the successful party cannot be determined.