C-25 - Code of Civil Procedure

Full text
484. The motion in revocation, served on all the parties in the record with notice of the day when it will be presented to a judge for reception, must be filed within 15 days counting, according to the circumstances, from the day when the party acquired knowledge of the judgment, when the cause preventing production of the defence was removed, when he acquired knowledge of the new evidence, of the falsity of the document or of the fraud of the opposite party, when the conclusive document was discovered, or when the judgment was rendered disavowing the unauthorized act.
In the case of a minor, contemplated in paragraph 3 of article 483, the time limit runs from the day of service of the judgment effected since he attained majority.
The time limit of 15 days is peremptory; nevertheless the court may, on motion and provided that not more than six months have elapsed since judgment, relieve from the consequences of his default the party who shows that, in fact, it was impossible for him to act sooner.
1965 (1st sess.), c. 80, a. 484; 1999, c. 40, s. 56.
484. The motion in revocation, served on all the parties in the record with notice of the day when it will be presented to a judge for reception, must be filed within 15 days counting, according to the circumstances, from the day when the party acquired knowledge of the judgment, when the cause preventing production of the defence was removed, when he acquired knowledge of the new evidence, of the falsity of the document or of the fraud of the opposite party, when the conclusive document was discovered, or when the judgment was rendered disavowing the unauthorized act.
In the case of a minor, contemplated in paragraph 3 of article 483, the delay runs from the day of service of the judgment effected since he attained majority.
The delay of 15 days is peremptory; nevertheless the court may, on motion and provided that not more than six months have elapsed since judgment, relieve from the consequences of his default the party who shows that, in fact, it was impossible for him to act sooner.
1965 (1st sess.), c. 80, a. 484.