2024 QCCA 105, 2024 QCCA 105

Remarco Investments Inc. c. Salvpar Holdings Inc. 2024 QCCA 105 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09- 030749-238 ( 500-17-115837-216) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: January 29, 2024 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS DOYON, J.A. CHRISTINE BAUDOUIN, J.A. PETER KALICHMAN, J.A. APPELLANTS COUNSEL REMARCO INVESTMENTS INC. REMO BARONE TERRA MONDE INC. TONY MICELI Mtre ANGELIKI PAPADIMITROPOULOS ( Phillips Friedman Kotler ) RESPONDENT COUNSEL salvpar holdingS inc.

Mtre SANDRINE RAQUEPAS (Norton Rose Fullbright Canada) DESCRIPTION: Application for extension of delay (art. 363 CCP ) and Application for leave to appeal (art. 31 CCP ). Clerk at the hearing : Ariane Simard-Trudel Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 11:38 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. Preliminary remarks by the Court. 11:40 Submissions by Mtre Papadimitropoulos.

11:41 Regarding the first application, Mtre Raquepas defers to the Court’s discretion. 11:42 Submissions by Mtre Raquepas. 11:43 Mtre Papadimitropoulos resumes her submissions. 11:51 Discussion between the Court and Mtre Papadimitropoulos. 12:05 Recess of the hearing. 12:08 Resumption of the hearing. BY THE COURT : Judgment – see page 3. 12:10 Question by Mtre Papadimitropoulos concerning reserved rights. 12:11 Conclusion of the hearing.

Ariane Simard-Trudel, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Motion for Permission to File an “Application for Leave to Appeal From a Judgment Rendered in the Course of a Proceeding” Outside of the Applicable Delay , will be granted. [ 2 ] As far as the application for leave to appeal is concerned, in the Court’s view, even if the applicants were correct that they could advance a defense of compensation without having to bring a cross-demand, they have no reasonable chance of success on appeal in arguing that the judge erred in concluding that the modification would unduly delay the proceedings.

It is important to note that the modification was served during a case-management conference, the purpose of which was to set trial dates. Thus, as the judge notes, the modification has already delayed the case. Furthermore, it is clear that if they were allowed to modify the proceedings, the allegations, which raise an entirely new set of facts, would have to be answered and this could lead to further examinations and further delays.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 3 ] GRANTS the Motion for Permission to File an “ Application for Leave to Appeal from a Judgment Rendered in the Course of a Proceeding ” Outside of the Applicable Delay; [ 4 ] DISMISSES the application for leave to appeal; [ 5 ] WITH judicial costs. FRANÇOIS DOYON, J.A. CHRISTINE BAUDOUIN, J.A. PETER KALICHMAN, J.A.