Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope and clarity of interlocutory and safeguard injunctions restricting social media publications about the plaintiffs, and whether those orders were sufficiently clear and unequivocal to ground findings of contempt.
• Proof that Mylène Hébert had actual knowledge of the May 2025 injunction orders and later citations for contempt, including personal service, court appearances, and email exchanges.
• Assessment of specific social media posts and videos (content, images, timing, and references to Alain Carrier and Performance N.C.) to determine if they breached the injunctions or remained online contrary to the court’s orders.
• Evaluation of Hébert’s partial efforts to remove content versus her continued publications, to decide if the violation was intentional non-compliance rather than misunderstanding or impossibility.
• Consideration of Hébert’s arguments based on freedom of expression and claims of a SLAPP-type proceeding, weighed against the need to preserve the authority of the courts and the integrity of judicial orders.
• Calibration of sanction for repeated contempt, including whether imprisonment was justified at this stage or whether an escalating monetary penalty and costs were sufficient under principles of proportionality and gradation of sanctions.

Factual background and origins of the dispute

Alain Carrier, a former mayor of Drummondville, operates multiple BRP dealerships across Québec under the Performance N.C. banner. Beginning in late April and early May 2025, Mylène Hébert launched a sustained campaign on social media and at public demonstrations, accusing Carrier and others of sexually assaulting her and of participating in a network of sexual exploitation of minors. Her posts were widely shared, after she encouraged followers to disseminate her content and attend court and street-level actions in support of her cause. Carrier categorically denied the allegations, asserting, among other things, that he first met Hébert only when she was about 30 years old. He and his corporation claimed that the online and public campaign was gravely damaging to their reputations and commercial interests, and that the accusations were unfounded and defamatory.

Initial injunction proceedings and temporary court orders

On 7 May 2025, Carrier and Performance N.C. filed an application for an interlocutory injunction before the Superior Court of Québec. They sought orders compelling Hébert to remove the impugned social media publications, to cease further references to them, and to publish an apology. Despite being properly served, Hébert did not appear at the 9 May 2025 hearing. The judge granted a provisional interlocutory injunction until 20 May 2025. The order required her to immediately remove all posts on social media where the names of Alain Carrier and/or Performance N.C. were mentioned, directly or indirectly; to immediately cease publishing, diffusing or sharing any declaration or content referring to them by any means; and to stop mentioning their names on social media, at demonstrations, and in interviews. The court also authorized broad modes of service and ordered provisional execution notwithstanding appeal, underscoring the urgency and seriousness of the matter. Shortly thereafter, Hébert responded publicly on Facebook, framing the injunction proceedings as an attack on her rights and calling for mass support from her online community.

Safeguard order and continuing online activity

On 20 May 2025, the court extended the provisional injunction through a safeguard order, again directing Hébert to remove all online content involving Carrier and Performance N.C. and to cease any further posts or statements about them. The safeguard judgment, issued on 21 May 2025, tracked and reinforced the earlier prohibitions: it ordered immediate removal of all relevant publications, an immediate stop to any further publications or sharing mentioning Carrier or his company, and a cessation of using their names in social media, demonstrations, or interviews. Despite this, Hébert continued to post. On 21 May 2025, for example, she published a Facebook message explicitly naming Carrier, characterizing him as involved in “pédocriminel” networks, linking him to multiple alleged tragic deaths, and asserting that she was justified in calling for arrests. She also republished texts that had been read in court, effectively re-broadcasting the same accusations the court was trying to restrain.

First contempt proceeding and finding of guilt

Because Hébert did not remove her publications and continued her online campaign, Carrier filed a first contempt motion shortly after the initial injunction. On 20 May 2025, the court issued a first citation to appear for contempt, alleging that since the 9 May 2025 order she had not taken down her posts and had continued to publish and share content about the plaintiffs. A second contempt motion followed in July 2025, now focused on her non-compliance with the 21 May 2025 safeguard order. The hearing on this second contempt application was set for 8 September 2025. In a decision rendered on 15 September 2025, Justice Sheehan found Hébert guilty of contempt of court. The judge emphasized that the injunction and safeguard orders were clear and unequivocal, that she knew about them, and that her decision not to remove her posts and to publish new content referencing Carrier amounted to intentional non-compliance. Given the scale and reach of the online dissemination and her incitement to others to share, Sheehan J. imposed a fine of 2,000 dollars as punishment for that first contempt. This earlier fine is part of the broader litigation history but is distinct from the monetary sanction imposed in the later judgment you provided.

Permanent injunction and expanded protection

Parallel to the contempt track, the underlying injunction case proceeded to a full hearing of several days. On 15 January 2026, Justice Synnott issued a permanent injunction against Hébert. The permanent order not only confirmed the prior interim and safeguard measures, but also broadened the protective net. Hébert was ordered, on a permanent basis, to remove immediately all social media publications where the names of Carrier, Performance N.C., and several of their lawyers and their firm appeared in connection with the case. She was permanently enjoined from publishing, diffusing, or sharing any declaration or content in which those names appeared in relation to the affair, on Facebook, TikTok, or any other medium. She was further ordered to publish the judgment itself on her Facebook page and TikTok account, to cease mentioning those names in demonstrations or interviews linked to the case, and to unblock access to her Facebook account for Carrier and his lawyers so they could monitor compliance. In addition, the court granted an order of protection preventing Hébert from attending at the homes of certain lawyers or at their law firm, or from sending others there in her stead, with limited exceptions for lawyers or bailiffs. Although no insurance or policy clauses were at issue, the decision reads functionally like a speech-control and protective order designed to shield the plaintiffs and their counsel from further alleged reputational and safety-related harm.

Second contempt accusation and Hébert’s absence

The judgment of 4 May 2026 (Justice Davis) concerns a later contempt proceeding, triggered by Hébert’s conduct during another defined period—between 10 July and 22 September 2025—after the second citation to appear for contempt had been issued, but before the later permanent injunction. The new citation alleged that she had still not removed her posts and had continued to publish, share, pronounce, or incite others to share content about Carrier and Performance N.C., contrary to the May 9, 20, and 21, 2025 injunction and safeguard orders. For this new contempt case, Hébert was personally served with the citation and attended at least one management conference, but when the hearing on culpability took place on 14 April 2026, she did not appear. She had instead written to the coordinating judge on 7 April 2026 requesting a suspension of the civil proceedings, claiming that the case was a strategic lawsuit against public participation (a SLAPP) and that criminal investigations and complaints to the judicial council were still ongoing. That suspension request was promptly denied, and she was reminded of the hearing date, time, and courtroom. The court therefore proceeded in her absence, drawing by analogy on Quebec penal procedure, which allows trials and judgments to go ahead when a defendant has been properly notified but chooses not to attend.

Evidence of continuing online publications and non-removal

On the evidentiary front, the plaintiffs relied heavily on social media captures and the work of a bailiff, Marie-Lou Petit, who had been instructed to inventory which of Hébert’s posts remained accessible after the safeguard order. During her verification on 10 April 2026, the bailiff found that a number of documents and posts had never been removed. Many of these were harshly critical of the judiciary and the justice system, and some targeted the plaintiffs’ lawyers, but not all explicitly mentioned Carrier or Performance N.C. Justice Davis carefully screened which pieces were relevant to the specific injunctions and the terms of the citation. He excluded, for purposes of culpability, posts that only attacked judges, the system, or counsel, reasoning that the citation cited Hébert for breaching the May 2025 injunctions regarding Carrier and his company, not for undermining judicial authority more broadly. However, he identified several items that still squarely breached the earlier orders. These included a collage of posts (exhibit OT3-48) in which Carrier was explicitly described as Hébert’s aggressor or “agresseur présumé,” references to him in the context of planned complaints as early as April 2025, and a post including his image and the branding of his business which remained online through at least part of the July–September 2025 period. There was also a Facebook publication on 8 September 2025 that paired a demand to end impunity for those who “sold and consumed” with a photo and name of Carrier, and a TikTok video posted on 15 September 2025 that criticized the justice system, set to the song “Shame Shame Shame,” while displaying his image. Although Davis J. found that some later posts did not explicitly name Carrier (for example, a 17 September 2025 message about “pedoland” and claims that the judge did not like women), the ones that did refer to him, and that remained online without being taken down, were sufficient to establish clear violations of the May 2025 orders.

Legal framework for contempt and limits of the case

In assessing contempt, Justice Davis adopted and applied the legal framework previously articulated by Justice Sheehan in the same case and by higher courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada. Three elements had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt: first, that the injunction and safeguard orders clearly and unequivocally stated what Hébert was required or forbidden to do; second, that she had real knowledge of those orders; and third, that she intentionally committed acts prohibited by the orders or intentionally failed to do what they required (specifically, removing posts and refraining from new ones). The judge agreed that the orders of 9 and 21 May 2025 were unambiguous: a reasonable person would understand that any online reference to Carrier or his company had to be removed and that no new references could be made. The evidence, including personal service, her presence at prior hearings, and later email exchanges with the court, showed she knew exactly what was expected of her. Davis J. declined, however, to use this proceeding to treat her broader attacks on the justice system as a separate basis for contempt under the part of article 58 C.p.c. that prohibits conduct which “entrave le cours normal de l’administration de la justice” or “porte atteinte à l’autorité ou à la dignité du tribunal.” Unlike the Supreme Court’s case in Morasse c. Nadeau-Dubois, he noted that the citation here did not expressly invoke that branch of article 58, and principles of procedural fairness meant he had to confine his analysis to the violation of specific court orders. As a result, while he acknowledged that her discourse and her continued disparagement of judges and lawyers did tend to discredit the administration of justice, he did not rely on those elements to ground the finding of contempt.

Assessment of Hébert’s intent and partial compliance

On intent, the court considered both aggravating and mitigating facets of Hébert’s conduct. On the one hand, she had already been found in contempt by Justice Sheehan on a virtually identical factual and legal basis, and that earlier judgment should have put her squarely on notice that non-compliance with injunctions carries real consequences. On the other hand, the evidence before Davis J. suggested some evolution: several of the earlier, more aggressive posts had in fact been removed; the remaining offending material was less voluminous than in the Sheehan case; and there was no clear proof that during the July–September 2025 window she had actively incited followers to share or repost her publications, as opposed to seeking moral and financial support for appeals and other legal steps. The judge accepted that Hébert repeatedly declared she would not “se taire,” but he interpreted this as at least partly an expression of her determination to continue speaking about what she perceived as systemic injustice, not necessarily as a decision to keep naming Carrier specifically. Nonetheless, because certain posts and videos referring to Carrier stayed online and new content naming him appeared during the relevant period, he concluded that she had deliberately chosen not to meet the full obligations of the May 2025 orders.

Sentencing principles and refusal to impose imprisonment

In fashioning a penalty, Justice Davis applied article 62 C.p.c., which authorizes, for contempt by an individual, a punitive payment of up to 10,000 dollars and, where appropriate, community service, as well as the possibility of imprisonment as a coercive enforcement tool when a person refuses to comply with an injunction. He relied on Court of Appeal guidance in Voghell and other cases stressing that contempt sanctions must denounce disobedience, deter future non-compliance, repair harm to victims and to the legal system, and prompt the contemnor to appreciate their responsibilities, all while respecting proportionality and the principle of gradation of sanctions. The plaintiffs urged the court to impose a 10,000-dollar fine and imprisonment, arguing that only a firm custodial response would ensure future compliance. Hébert, in written representations, invoked freedom of expression, claimed that her proceedings were part of a SLAPP-like pattern, emphasized her dire financial circumstances (living on IVAC benefits and in financial insecurity), and asked that no penalty, especially no jail term, be imposed while criminal investigations and complaints to the judicial council were pending. Davis J. acknowledged that Hébert’s language and hostility toward the courts and counsel displayed significant contemptuousness, and that some of the impugned publications remained public despite clear orders to remove them. However, he also found that compared to the record before Sheehan J., the volume and intensity of the remaining breaches had diminished, and that Hébert had made at least partial efforts to respect the prohibitions concerning Carrier and Performance N.C. He further observed that most of the offending posts predated Sheehan J.’s 15 September 2025 contempt judgment, save for the 15 September TikTok video, and that imposing imprisonment at this stage would not align with the Court of Appeal’s emphasis that incarceration in contempt matters is an exceptional, last-resort enforcement measure.

Outcome, successful party, and monetary consequences

In the result, Justice Davis declared Hébert guilty of contempt of court for failing to comply with the Superior Court’s injunctions of 9 and 21 May 2025 concerning Alain Carrier and Performance N.C. He rejected her request to suspend sentencing, and instead imposed a punitive fine of 3,500 dollars, payable within 45 days, ordered that the judgment be transmitted to the penal registry for execution, and directed that it be enforced under the Code of Penal Procedure, with court costs (“frais de justice”) awarded but not specifically quantified. Across the broader series of decisions referred to in this judgment, the successful parties are consistently Carrier and Performance N.C.: Justice Sheehan had previously imposed a 2,000-dollar fine against Hébert in an earlier contempt ruling, and Justice Synnott later granted a wide-ranging permanent injunction in their favor. Taken together, the two quantified contempt fines total 5,500 dollars ordered against Hébert, while any additional amounts for costs and legal fees cannot be precisely determined from the texts available.