2020 QCCQ 13630, 2020 QCCQ 13630

OT Mining Corporation Inc. c. Autorité des marchés financiers 2020 QCCQ 13630 COURT OF QUÉBEC Administrative and Appellate Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-80-039754-198 DATE: November 5, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE DAVID L. CAMERON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ O.T. MINING CORPORATION INC. and ROSEMARY CHRISTENSEN Appellants v.

AUTORITÉ DES MARCHÉS FINANCIERS Respondant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT GIVEN FROM THE BENCH ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] This is an application de bene esse to be relieved of default to produce a notice of appeal and memorandum within the time limit in respect of O.T. Mining Corporation Inc. (The « Company »). [ 2 ] The case presents the unusual circumstance where the document considered by the Court as a notice of appeal was signed both by the Appellant Mrs.

Christensen and also by the Company, the latter not being represented by an attorney. [ 3 ] My colleague, Madam Justice Marie Michelle Lavigne, in a case management conference, decided as follows: Le Tribunal informe Mme Christensen que la compagnie O.T. Mining Corporation doit agir par l’intermédiaire d’un avocat. Mme Christensen en mandatera un qui déposera un acte de représentation avant le 3 avril 2020. Me Blais, agissant pour l’Autorité des marchés financiers, déclare avoir reçu signification de la Déclaration d’appel et du mémoire à l’intérieur des délais.

Date de production des mémoires Le mémoire des appelants est déjà déposé. Il porte la date du 23 janvier 2020. La compagnie, lorsqu’elle sera représentée, fera siens les arguments soulevés par Mme Christensen. [ 4 ] The paradox in the file is that the reader of this text believes, naturally, that the mémoire is that of the two Appellants and that it is already filed. [ 5 ] The reader also understands that the Company, which has been given the opportunity, within a certain deadline, to be represented, will adopt the arguments raised by Mrs.

Christenson, who has raised them for herself and would have wanted to raise them on behalf of the Company. [ 6 ] The deadline was extended, then re-extended by a decision communicated by the coordination of the DAA on April 21, 2020 and then by the undersigned in a case management conference on June 17, 2020. [ 7 ] The reader of the email of April 21, understands that Judge Lavigne’s extension depended upon there being no postponement of the November 5 th proceeding. [ 8 ] The same concern motivated the undersigned to give the extension for a substitution of attorney until August 19, 2020.

That time limit was in fact suspended as was every other time limit related to procedure because of the COVID’s crises. [ 9 ] Even though the case management decision of January 31, 2021 seems to depart from the procedure that could be anticipated from a reading of the rules of practice and certain precedents established by the jurisprudence, it was, however, a decision of the Judge seized of the matter and it was never challenged, something that would have been possible only by way of judicial review before the Superior Court. [ 10 ] The decision is therefore binding.

[ 11 ] In reading the minutes and decisions pertaining to case management in this file, the Court presently seized interprets the expression of « fera siens » as restricting the attorney who will act for the company to the arguments already raised in the Mémoire des appelants and not as requiring a written production by the new attorney of this same argument. [ 12 ] The Court also understands the decision of Justice Lavigne to consider O.T.

Mining Inc. to already be an appellant, such that, despite the formal defect in the notice of appeal, that appeal, effectively, was made on behalf of the company who could be represented in the file by an attorney constituted subsequently. [ 13 ] Again, these decisions depart from usual practice, but their legality cannot be challenged by the Court presently seized. They are therefore binding. BY THESE REASONS, THE COURT : CONSIDERS that is not necessary to relieve O.T.

Mining Corporation Inc. of a default; DECLARES that the constitution of attorney Daniel Brook is sufficient and the acknowledgement at the present hearing that O.T. Mining has adopted the arguments of the Mémoire des appelants is sufficient to confirm the company’s participation in the file and in today’s hearing as an appellant who has filed its memorandum in a timely manner. WITH COSTS to follow. __________________________________ David L. Cameron, J.C.Q. Me Daniel Brook Brook Legal Inc. Attorney for the Appellant O.T. MINING CORPORATION INC.

ROSEMARY CHRISTENSEN Not represented Me Éric Blais Contentieux de l’Autorité des marchés financiers Attorney for the Respondant Date of hearing: November 5, 2020