In our first article on Jocelyn Grégoire v. Autorité des marchés financiers (2026 QCCQ 4188), we looked at what the Court of Québec had to say about private financing, brokerage, and securities. This second article addresses another important aspect of the decision: the limits on the Financial Markets Administrative Tribunal’s power to sanction breaches of its own orders.
In Grégoire, the Court of Québec ruled that the Financial Markets Administrative Tribunal (FMAT) cannot impose an administrative penalty to sanction a breach of its orders. The Court also clarified how the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) can pursue sanctions for such a breach through the courts.
$130,000 administrative penalty set aside
The Court largely upheld an FMAT decision regarding mortgage brokerage and securities activities. However, it set aside a $130,000 administrative penalty imposed on the appellants for breaching an interim order issued by the FMAT.
The FMAT had relied on its power to impose administrative penalties for contraventions of the Securities Act and the Act respecting the distribution of financial products and services. The Court found that the FMAT does not have the authority to impose an administrative penalty for a breach of its own orders.
Two ways to sanction a breach
The decision provides an important clarification. The Court identified two ways to sanction a breach of an FMAT order that occurs outside of a hearing:
- Penal proceedings before the Court of Québec: The AMF can institute penal proceedings before the Court of Québec to pursue sanctions for a breach of the FMAT’s decision.
- Contempt of court before the Superior Court: The AMF can file the FMAT order with the Superior Court so that it becomes enforceable as a judgment of that court. Depending on the circumstances, this opens the door to contempt proceedings for breach of a Superior Court order.
The FMAT could not interpret the law as giving it a third way to sanction breaches of its own orders. The Court noted that the FMAT remains an administrative tribunal whose powers derive from statute. The fact that the legislature gave it significant public protection powers does not allow the tribunal to expand the sanction mechanisms expressly granted to it.
Why the distinction between sanction mechanisms matters
For individuals and businesses facing an AMF investigation or proceeding, Grégoire shows why it’s important to distinguish between the alleged conduct, the provision cited, the sanction sought, and the appropriate forum. The same set of facts can give rise to administrative, penal, or contempt proceedings. These proceedings are governed by distinct regimes and are not interchangeable.
Grégoire does not diminish the force of FMAT orders. Rather, it confirms that breaches must be sanctioned through the mechanisms established by the legislature. Regulatory authorities have considerable investigative and enforcement powers. In that context, the authority’s jurisdiction and the legality of the chosen measure are central questions from the outset of a case.
The AMF appealed the ruling, and Mr. Grégoire filed a cross-appeal. The Court of Québec’s findings thus remain subject to review on appeal.