2017 QCCA 1576, 2017 QCCA 1576

Paradox Security Systems Ltd. c. Hechter 2017 QCCA 1576 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-027025-170 (500-22-236133-172) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE : October 17, 2017 THE HONOURABLE NICHOLAS KASIRER, J.A. PETITIONER COUNSEL PARADOX SECURITY SYSTEMS LTD. Mtre KEVIN VINCELETTE (BCF s.e.n.c.r.l.) RESPONDENT COUNSEL IFTACH HECHTER Mtre VIRGINIE RAYMOND-MAILHOT (Kugler, Kandestin s.e.n.c.r.l., L.L.P.) DESCRIPTION : Application for leave to appeal from a judgment rendered on August 3, 2017 by the Honourable Nathalie Chalifour of the Court of Québec, District of Montreal. (Art. 30, al. 2 and 357 C.C.P. ) Clerk : Mihary Andrianaivo Courtroom : RC.18 HEARING

9:44 Beginning of the hearing. Identification of counsel. Submissions by Mtre Vincelette. 10:10 Submissions by Mtre Raymond-Mailhot. 10:24 Rebuttal by Mtre Vincelette. 10:29 Recess. 10:59 Resumption. BY THE JUDGE: Judgment – See page 3. 11:04 End of the hearing. Mihary Andrianaivo Clerk BY THE JUDGE JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Paradox Security Systems Ltd. seeks leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Québec, District of Montreal (the Honourable Judge Nathalie Chaifour), rendered on August 3, 2017, which granted a motion by Iftach Hechter to decline jurisdiction in favour of the Israeli Courts.

The value of the subject-matter in dispute is said by the petitioner to be $33,108.94. [ 2 ] In order to justify leave, the petitioner submits that the judge erred in law by incorrectly applying the rules relating to forum non conveniens set forth in

article 3135 C.C.Q., specifically by declining jurisdiction in the absence of a factual context and of exceptional circumstances justifying that decision. Furthermore, the judge is said to have erred by lifting the corporate veil as between the petitioner and a sister corporation that is in litigation with the respondent in Israel, as well as making several palpable and overriding errors of fact. *** [ 3 ] Given the relatively modest sum in dispute, the petitioner must show that the question raised should be submitted to the Court within the meaning of

article 30, para. 2 and para. 3 C.C.P. [ 4 ] Leave should be denied. The petitioner has failed to raise a question that meets the standard set by the Code of Civil Procedure . [ 5 ] The judge in first instance explained the various factors that suggested to her that the Israeli courts would be better placed to resolve this dispute than the Quebec courts, and specifically noted that the circumstances were exceptional in a manner that justified declining jurisdiction. I see no reviewable error in the exercise of her discretion in measuring the relevant factors under

article 3135 C.C.Q. She might have been more explicit in explaining what is exceptional in the circumstances (see Stormbreaker Marketing and Productions Inc. v. Weinstock , 2013 QCCA 269 ) but, considering her reasons for judgment as a whole, this is not grounds for leave under

article 30, para. 2 C.C.P. Moreover, I respectfully disagree with the petitioner that the judge erred by lifting the corporate veil. She simply observed that the two corporations are controlled by the same person, a fact that the petitioner recognizes as true and that appears to have been relevant to the judge's measure of the “interest of the parties” criterion under

article 3135 C.C.Q. [ 6 ] None of the arguments raised merits the attention of the Court: none of them suggest to me a matter that would be of interest or import to anyone other than the parties to this dispute: see, e.g. , 182305 Canada inc. v. Raymond , 2016 QCCA 1681 , para. 30-1 (Savard, J.A., in chambers). Even assuming, for the purposes of discussion only, that the judge’s measure of the relevant criteria under

article 3135 was mistaken, such a mistake is not necessarily sufficient to obtain leave. When seeking under

article 30, para. 2 C.C.P., it bears recalling that the Court of Appeal is not a simple court of error: see, e.g ., Ville de Montréal v. Consultants SM inc ., 2017 QCCA 1372 (in chambers). Finally, the proper application of the principle of proportionality in

article 18 C.C.P., in light of the amount in dispute and the cost of an appeal, also weighs against granting leave: see, e.g ., De Sousa v. D’Amour-Cloutier , 2016 QCCA 673 (Hogue, J.A., in chambers). FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS , the undersigned: [ 7 ] DISMISSES the application for leave to appeal, with legal costs.

NICHOLAS KaSIRER , J.A.