2019 QCCQ 1161, 2019 QCCQ 1161

Ramsden c. Iaquinta 2019 QCCQ 1161 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-22-220180-155 DATE: January 10, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE DAVID L. CAMERON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DANIELA RAMSDEN Plaintiff v.

GINA IAQUINTA Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] During the trial in this matter, the Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant Daniel Ramsden opposed the production of a settlement agreement that intervened between herself and the now-dissolved law firm Heenan Blaikie in file 500-17-070968-121 of the Superior Court. [ 2 ] The Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff, Gina Iaquinta sought production of the settlement agreement in connection with one of the conclusions of her cross-demand. [ 3 ] The case on the merits of which the court is seized is an action by Daniela Ramsden personally and es qualité the syndicate of the co-owners of 454-456 Grosvenor Avenue in Westmount, those co-owners being herself and the Defendant, Gina Iaquinta. [ 4 ] She claims on behalf of the syndicate a certain amount of money she alleges her co-owner owes to the syndicate, 5,143.56 $, as well a condemnation that would be payable to her personally for 12,745.90 $.

She alleges that this amount is the 60% share of amounts she has paid on behalf of the syndicate for various common expanses. [ 5 ] Essentially, the relationship between the co-owners broke down, the syndicate ceased functioning and each of the co-owners claims from the other various contributions and expenses allegedly made unilaterally. [ 6 ] The Cross-demand made by Gina Iaquinta against her co-owner Daniela Ramsden includes orders for amounts of money payable by Daniela Ramsden to the syndicate, representing her proportional share of 40% of various expenses.

The action also includes in its conclusions an order for Ms.

Ramsden to remove a heating system which she installed in the basement as well as personal belongings. [ 7 ] What is more important to the present question is the conclusion of the Cross-Demand seeking an order of payment to the Defendant of an amount equal to 60% of the sum the Plaintiff received from Heenan Blaikie as the result of her settlement out of Court in file number 500-17-070968-121. [ 8 ] This claim is based on the premise that the settlement represented amounts that Daniela Ramsden collected on the syndicate’s behalf or on behalf of the other co-owner. [ 9 ] If that premise were accurate, it would follow that the Court should allow the production of the settlement documents in order to ascertain the amount of money paid in the settlement that it could be restituted to the party to whom it is due. [ 10 ] In that sense, the objection made by Daniela Ramsden, based on relevance, would be ill founded.

The document would bear a direct relevance to the issue. [ 11 ] Daniela Ramsden contests however on the grounds that the terms of the settlements arrangement with Heenan Blaikie are confidential. [ 12 ] This confidentiality creates a paradox and a predicament for both parties: Daniela Ramsden, having committed to a confidentiality arrangement, could suffer prejudice if it became necessary to disclose the terms of settlement in order to satisfy the Court’s. [ 13 ] Daniela Ramsden argues as well that the disclosure of the document would be futile as the settlement is in no way related to amounts that are within the purview of the syndicate, that these amount to do not accrue to the benefit of the other co-owner and that, even if the amounts were disclosed, the Court could not condemn Daniela Ramsden to remit this money to parties that have no interest in it. [ 14 ] It becomes necessary to examine the proceedings that Daniela Ramsden took against the former Firm of Heenan Blaikie in order to

understand whether there is merit or not to the allegation that the amounts she would have collected from a settlement accrue to the benefit of the syndicate or to her co-owner. [ 15 ] Daniela Ramsden alleges in that case that, having purchased her condominium unit on October 18, 2004 she retained Heenan Blaikie on or about March 6, 2006 to advance her interests against the previous owner of the unit with respect to three latent defects which came to her attention subsequently to the sale, affecting masonry bricks, plumbing and a blocked drain pipe. [ 16 ] The introductory motion refers to the costs that were incurred to correct the alleged defects. [ 17 ] It is not always clear in the allegations that the amounts for which the Plaintiff wished to sue the vendor to repair the latent defects represented only the Plaintiff’s pro-rata share.

It is however clear that the Plaintiff was suing Heenan Blaikie for her own loss to the extent of her interests in the outcome of the prospective law suit, a law suit which, according to the allegations, became impossible because of prescription. [ 18 ] Neither the syndicate in its representative capacity, nor Gina Iaquinta sued Heenan Blaikie.

There is no reason to suspect that Heenan Blaikie included in the settlement made with Daniela Ramsden any amount related to any interest in a law suit against the previous owner of Daniela Ramsden’s unit these other parties may have believed they had. [ 19 ] Whatever consideration was given by Heenan Blaikie to resolve Daniela Ramsden’s claim resulting from a lapsed prescription, it is obvious that the consideration would not settle the interest against Heenan Blaikie of the other co-owner or of the syndicate, who never sought recourse against this firm. [ 20 ] Gina Iaquinta alleged her expectation that Daniela Ramsden would have acted in her interests but there is nothing in Daniela Ramsden’s case against Heenan Blaikie, to suggest that Daniela Ramsden’s claim against Heenan Blaikie included the recovery of amounts owing to Gina Iaquinta for her share of the costs associated with the repairs. [ 21 ] Therefore, it would not be productive to compel production of the settlement agreement despite obligations of confidentiality.

Whatever the consideration that was given for the settlement, it would relate only to Daniela Ramsden’s loss, if any, because of the alleged failure of Heenan Blaikie to advise her of the need to act within the relevant prescriptive period. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: ALLOWS the opposition to the production of the settlement agreement; DECLARES the proof closed and proceeds to deliberate on the judgement on the merits. THE WHOLE with costs to follow. __________________________________ David L. Cameron, J.C.Q. Me Crystal Corrente Frégeau & Associés inc.

For the Plaintiff Me Nicolas Brochu Fishman Flanz Meland Paquin s.e.n.c.r.l. For the Defendent Date of hearing: November 27, 2018