Bill 395 amends three Quebec statutes to force sellers of passenger vehicles to provide buyers with an SAQ verification notice showing whether any rights (for example hypothecs) appear against the vehicle, to warrant that the vehicle is free of rights (except those declared at sale), and to discharge registered hypothecs unless the buyer assumes the secured debt. The bill also requires dealers to show the verification result on the mandatory used‑vehicle label and creates a small criminal fine for private sellers who fail to provide the verification notice.
Importantly, the bill expands the SAQ’s role: when processing a verification notice for transfers between non‑dealer parties, the Société must check the register of personal and movable real rights (RDPRM) for granted rights and it must compensate buyers for damages caused by duly published rights that were omitted from the notice. The package aims to reduce hidden liens in used‑vehicle transactions but creates new operational duties for sellers, dealers and the SAQ and leaves timing, scope and cost questions for implementation.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the transferor of a passenger vehicle to give the buyer an SAQ verification notice before sale and to warrant the vehicle is free of rights except those declared; it requires dealers to display the RDPRM verification result on the used‑vehicle label. The SAQ must check the RDPRM when issuing a verification notice for private (non‑dealer) transfers and must compensate buyers for damages from rights omitted from that notice.
Who It Affects
Private sellers (transferors) of passenger vehicles, used‑vehicle dealers (label obligations), the Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec (new verification and compensation duties), and buyers of used passenger vehicles who face the risk of hidden hypothecs. Creditors with registered hypothecs and the RDPRM registry processes will also be implicated operationally.
Why It Matters
It reassigns the primary onus for concealed liens from buyers to sellers and the SAQ, creating a formal title‑search step in private transactions and a statutory compensation mechanism. For compliance teams and dealers, it introduces new pre‑sale disclosure and label requirements; for public administrators, it expands SAQ operational exposure and potential fiscal liabilities.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill 395 inserts a new pre‑sale obligation into the Highway Safety Code: before concluding a sale of a passenger vehicle, the transferor must provide the buyer with a verification notice obtained from the SAQ and must warrant the vehicle is free of rights except for any rights the seller explicitly declares at sale. The seller must also discharge all hypothecs on the vehicle — whether declared or registered — unless the buyer explicitly agrees to assume the debt secured by those hypothecs.
The practical effect is to make private sellers the first line of defense against hidden liens and to require an SAQ document be supplied to the buyer before transfer of ownership.
To support that step, the bill amends the SAQ’s statutory functions so that, when it processes a request for a verification notice tied to a transfer between non‑dealer parties, it must check the register of personal and movable real rights (RDPRM) for any granted rights on the vehicle. If a duly published right exists but the SAQ’s notice omitted it, the SAQ is statutorily required to compensate the new owner for resulting damage.
The bill therefore pairs a private‑party verification requirement with a public‑agency title check and a public compensation backstop.Dealers are treated differently: the Consumer Protection Act amendment does not make the SAQ check mandatory for dealer sales but forces a dealer to report the result of the RDPRM verification on the mandatory used‑vehicle label. Finally, the Code adds a modest criminal sanction — a $200 to $300 fine — for a transferor who fails to provide the required verification notice.
In combination, these changes create a layered regime of seller warranties, agency checks and consumer disclosures intended to reduce the incidence of undisclosed rights on used passenger vehicles.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The transferor must provide the buyer, before concluding the contract of sale, with an SAQ verification notice and warrant the vehicle is free of all rights except those declared at sale.
The transferor must discharge all hypothecs (registered or declared) on the vehicle unless the buyer expressly assumes the secured debt.
When processing a verification notice for transfers between non‑dealer parties, the SAQ must check the RDPRM (register of personal and movable real rights) for rights granted on the vehicle.
If a duly published right exists but the SAQ omitted it from the verification notice, the SAQ must compensate the new owner for damage resulting from the exercise of that right.
Merchants (used‑vehicle dealers) must indicate the result of the RDPRM verification on the mandatory used‑automobile label; private sellers who fail to provide the required verification notice face an offence carrying a $200–$300 fine.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Seller warranty and pre‑sale SAQ verification notice
The bill adds two core duties to the seller: deliver the SAQ verification notice before sale and warrant the vehicle is free of rights except those declared at sale. The provision also requires the seller to discharge all hypothecs unless the buyer assumes the secured debt. Practically, this converts the verification notice into a precondition for a compliant transfer and makes sellers responsible for clearing registered securities or documenting buyer assumption of debt.
Technical update to offence cross‑references
Section 51’s amendment adjusts the list of Code provisions that can trigger enforcement consequences, specifically adding the new first paragraph of section 40 to existing references. This is a housekeeping change that ensures the new warranty/notice duty is encompassed by existing enforcement architecture and other linked penalties in the Code.
Offence and fine for failing to provide the verification notice
A new penal provision makes a transferor who contravenes the second paragraph of section 40 (the notice/warranty/discharge duty) liable to a fine of $200 to $300. The sanction is modest and criminal in form; it targets noncompliance with the delivery obligation rather than civil damages for undisclosed hypothecs, which are addressed separately by the warranty and the SAQ compensation scheme.
Dealer label must state RDPRM verification result
The Consumer Protection Act already requires dealers to affix labels to used automobiles; the bill makes those labels include ‘the result of the verification carried out by the merchant in the register of personal and movable real rights’ concerning rights on the vehicle. That creates a standardized disclosure for dealer sales, but it stops short of mandating an SAQ check for dealer transactions — the label records the merchant’s verification result.
SAQ duty to check RDPRM and compensate buyers for omissions
The bill expands the SAQ’s functions in two linked ways. First, when processing a request for a verification notice in connection with a transfer of a passenger vehicle between non‑dealer parties, the SAQ must check the RDPRM to see whether any rights have been granted on the vehicle. Second, the SAQ is given an explicit obligation to compensate a new owner for damages caused by duly published rights that were omitted from its verification notice. These clauses create both an operational verification duty and a statutory financial exposure for the SAQ.
Commencement on assent
The Act comes into force on the date of assent. There are no transitional details in the bill about pending transfers, deadlines for SAQ process changes, or fee schedules; those implementation details will be left to regulation or administrative practice.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Private buyers of used passenger vehicles — they receive a pre‑sale SAQ verification notice, a statutory seller warranty, and a path to compensation if a right published in the RDPRM was omitted from the notice.
- Consumers purchasing from dealers — labels will explicitly state the RDPRM verification result, improving transparency at the point of sale and simplifying due diligence.
- Clean‑title buyers and second‑hand market confidence — clearer disclosure and an SAQ backstop should reduce post‑sale disputes and uncertainty that deter private sales.
Who Bears the Cost
- Private sellers (transferors) — they must obtain and provide the SAQ verification notice, discharge registered hypothecs or secure documented buyer assumption, and face fines for noncompliance; this raises transaction costs and legal exposure for casual sellers.
- Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec — the SAQ must expand its verification process to consult the RDPRM for private transfers and accept liability to compensate buyers for omitted published rights, increasing operational and fiscal burdens.
- Merchants (used‑vehicle dealers) — dealers must record and display RDPRM verification results on labels and adjust sales processes; although not required to trigger an SAQ RDPRM search, they face compliance and recordkeeping costs.
- Creditors with registered hypothecs — they may see increased requests to discharge hypothecs or face the transferor’s obligation to clear titles, requiring administrative responses and possible coordination with sellers/buyers.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate aims — giving buyers reliable title information and limiting the private‑party market’s exposure to hidden hypothecs — but forces a trade‑off: it shifts cost and operational responsibility onto sellers and the SAQ to deliver certainty, while leaving timing, proof standards and dealer treatment under‑specified, which may preserve gaps that defeat the certainty the regime seeks to create.
The bill creates a protection stack — seller warranty, pre‑sale SAQ verification and an SAQ compensation backstop — but the protections depend on precise sequencing and on what the RDPRM search actually captures at a point in time. A verification notice is a snapshot: rights registered after issuance remain a risk unless the parties time the search tightly and the SAQ’s operational process prevents late registrations from upsetting transfers.
The statute gives the SAQ compensation responsibility for omissions, but it does not define compensation standards, caps, or procedural proof requirements; the absence of those details raises questions about how a buyer will establish entitlement, how damage will be calculated, and how the SAQ will recover amounts if an omitted right is ultimately valid.
Another implementation tension concerns dealer versus private‑party transfers. The SAQ’s RDPRM check is triggered for transfers between parties who are not dealers, while dealer sales will only show the merchant’s verification result on the label.
That creates a potential gap: buyers who purchase from dealers may rely on a merchant disclosure that is not supported by an SAQ‑performed RDPRM check or the SAQ compensation backstop. Finally, the $200–$300 fine for noncompliance is symbolic relative to the value of an undisclosed hypothec; enforcement may therefore prioritize deterrence of blatant noncompliance rather than making whole buyers who suffer actual loss.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.