2022 QCCA 1056, 2022 QCCA 1056

Montreal Floor Covering Inc. c. House of Carpets & Tiles (Canada) Ltd. 2022 QCCA 1056 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-030106-223 ( 500-11-060110-216 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: August 4, 2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE BENOÎT MOORE, J.A. GUY COURNOYER, J.A. CHRISTINE BAUDOUIN, J.A. APPLICANT COUNSEL montreal floor covering inc.

Mtre anthony franceshini ( INF ) Absent RESPONDENTS COUNSEL House of carpets & tiles (canada) ltd. montreal tile & broadloom inc. m tre cindy benech ( Prévost Fortin D'Aoust ) By videoconference IMPLEADED PARTIES COUNSEL brenda st-pierre , in her capacity as liquidator of the succession of stephen anthony skoda jr. M tre aurélie gagné ( Thibeault Joyal ) By videoconference JOSEPH SKODA ROBERT SKODA Mrs ÉMILIE HABEL, articling student for Mtre EMMANUEL KOUZELIS ( Alepin Gauthier Avocats ) By videoconference

11301802 CANADA INC. ABSENT AND UNREPRESENTED On appeal from a judgment rendered on May 6, 2022 by the Honourable Gary D. D. Morrison of the Superior Court , District of Montreal . DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal a judgment rendered in the course of a proceeding (Article 31 C.C.P. ). Application de bene esse for leave to appeal out of delay (Article 363 C.C.P. ). Clerk at the hearing : Lesly Ramos Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 9:36 Commencement of the hearing. Continuation of the hearing held on August 3, 2022. The parties were excused from appearing in Court.

BY THE COURT: Judgment – see page 4. Conclusion of the hearing. Lesly Ramos, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] On May 16, 2022, the Superior Court granted a forced intervention in the context of a corporate family dispute in which a succession seeks a remedy under s. 241 of the

Canada Business Corporations Act . [1] [ 2 ] The Court is seized with two applications: (1) leave to appeal from a Superior Court judgment rendered in the course of a proceeding granting the forced intervention (art. 31 C.P.P. ); and (2) an application for leave to appeal after the expiry of the time limit (art. 363 C.C.P. ). [ 3 ] The Applicant argues that a forced intervention should not have been ordered as it is not the appropriate procedural vehicle for obtaining the relevant document and information and that the usual procedures under the C.C.P. should be used instead of including the Applicant in costly and time-consuming litigation.

[ 4 ] Further, the Applicant argues that the trial judge erred in fact by confusing two different successions and the identity of their respective and distinct heirs. It claims that, as a result, the trial judge erroneously concluded that the Applicant is an interested party whose intervention could be forced under art. 184 C.C.P. , when the Applicant is not, in fact, an interested party. [ 5 ] Granting an intervention involves a discretionary assessment. Despite what appears to be confusion in the judgment, we are not convinced that it materially affects the judge’s decision.

Additionally, we are not convinced that the forced intervention results in irreparable prejudice to the Applicant. [2] The appeal has no reasonable chance of success. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 6 ] DISMISSES the application to extend the time limit to file an application for leave to appeal, with costs; [ 7 ] DISMISSES the application for leave to appeal, with costs. BENOÎT MOORE, J.A. GUY COURNOYER, J.A. CHRISTINE BAUDOUIN, J.A.