2016 QCCQ 2374, 2016 QCCQ 2374

McCormack c. Mxcgi Multispex Groupe conseil inc. 2016 QCCQ 2374 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL CIVIL Division No : 500-22-216379-142 DATE: April 8, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ MARK McCORMACK Plaintiff v. MXCGI MULTISPEX GROUPE CONSEIL INC.

Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] GIVEN the evidence; [ 2 ] WHEREAS , on June 8, 2012, a "Development Service Agreement" (exhibit P-3) intervened between defendant and MPH Group of University of Alberta (hereafter "MPH"); "MPH" is the abbreviation for "Make Poverty History"; [ 3 ] WHEREAS , according to said agreement, defendant was to provide and did indeed provide the services described therein, to MPH, and not to plaintiff personally; [ 4 ] WHEREAS defendant's client and co-contractor was MPH, not plaintiff; [ 5 ] WHEREAS plaintiff signed the agreement on behalf of MPH, as its president, and not on his own behalf; [ 6 ] WHEREAS , beforehand, defendant's proposal was submitted to MPH and not to plaintiff personally (exhibit P-2); [ 7 ] WHEREAS invoice D-10 was made out to MPH and not to plaintiff personally; [ 8 ] WHEREAS , in all correspondence between the parties, plaintiff clearly identified himself as "President Make Poverty History University of Alberta"; [ 9 ] WHEREAS , after plaintiff instituted his action, defendant filed a preliminary motion for dismissal alleging plaintiff's lack of interest (article 165(4) C.C.P .); [ 10 ] WHEREAS , at the hearing of said motion, plaintiff's lawyer was unable to definitively answer the Court's questions as to the legal status of MPH and the provenance of the funds used to pay defendant's fees; [ 11 ] WHEREAS , at said hearing, the honourable Brigitte Gouin dismissed the preliminary motion, all the while saying: "Me Dalfen: I cannot speak to whether there is or whether my client […] or whether at this stage where he signed the contract and made payments he was not attempting to become an entity.

He became essentially almost stillborn. Honourable Gouin: Anything else sir? Me Dalfen: On the basis of that I would say that whatever name it is, it is my client and it should remain for a factual question at a later stage when he can be here to testify and confirm various cheques, one of which as it seems does have his name on it. Other ones of which […] the proposal in P-2.

Honourable Gouin: Those are bank drafts? Me Dalfen: Yes they are bank drafts. Honourable Gouin: And his name is where? Me Dalfen: His name appears on the last one. Honourable Gouin: Only on the last one. What about all the other ones? Me Dalfen: The other ones do not seem to include his name as they were bank drafts made out and […] Honourable Gouin: Do you have any proof as to where the money comes from? Me Dalfen: These would be the representations of my client. Honourable Gouin: You didn't think that would have been a good idea to file that when you were doing an amended motion?

Because now it's you who is testifying. You're a lawyer. OK – anything else? Me Dalfen: Really that and respectfully, I would say that at this stage it is premature to dismiss […] Honourable Gouin: It's a little too easy. Merci beaucoup – bye. Honourable Gouin: Ce que je comprends de votre confrère c'est qu'on ne sait pas si elle a sa publicité légale ou l'équivalent qui existe en Alberta, mais ce qu'il sait c'est que ça ne serait pas enregistré de toute façon nulle part; qu'il ferait affaires sous un nom différent, mais on n'a pas de preuve de ça. Puis, il y a un nom sur la dernière traite bancaire.

Non pas la traite bancaire, le chèque. La traite bancaire il n'y a pas de nom et il n'y a aucune mention d'où viennent les fonds. Bon – autre chose maître? Me Lachance: Vous avez vu la difficulté. Quand nous avons reçu la requête […] manifestement il n'y a pas de lien […] Honourable Gouin: Bon! Je n'accorderai pas la requête, même si […] j'ai hâte de voir comment le juge sur le banc va regarder ça.

J'avoue que j'aimerais ça être une petite souris pour regarder […] mais je vais rejeter la requête, mais sans frais. […] Tout d'abord, quand il s'agit d'une requête pour rejet tout le monde est conscient du fait que le juge en pratique doit y aller avec le plus de circonscription possible, le plus de précautions possibles et il y a un élément, le seul élément que je considère qui tient, c'est la dernière signature sur le chèque et certainement pas sur la traite bancaire. On ne sait même pas d'où viennent les sous. On ne peut même pas établir en quoi consiste Make Poverty History ou MPH of University of Alberta.

On n'a aucune idée quant à son existence ou sa non- existence et quelle est la relation de M. Mark McCormack par rapport à ça. Pour moi, c'est plus que ténu comme argument en droit et je suis polie. Par contre, de là à accorder la requête en vertu de 165.4. Évidemment, il y a des éléments de faits qui peuvent être démontrés. Me Lachance: Excusez-moi d'interrompre. En référence à P-4, c'est une traite bancaire également […] Honourable Gouin: […] Vous allez avoir des arguments encore plus solides au fond. Non, je n'accorderai pas la requête, mais sans frais.

Je comprends très bien que vous l'ayez présentée, j'aurais fait la même chose. Disons que c'est un élément de précaution pour lequel je vais laisser votre confrère se rendre au fond. Malheureusement, c'est en dessous de 25 000 $, sinon j'aurais fait un interrogatoire hors cour. J'avoue que j'aurais été inspirée!

Donc, je rejette la requête sans frais." [ 12 ] WHEREAS , at the trial on the merits, plaintiff did not present preponderant evidence to establish that he has sufficient interest to bring the judicial application (article 85 N.C.C.P. ); [ 13 ] WHEREAS , on the contrary, plaintiff stated that he was "president of a student group called "Make Poverty History" made up of a "collection of students… with a common mission" and that he "was leading the group"; [ 14 ] WHEREAS , despite Judge Gouin's numerous questions on December 15, 2014, on the merits, plaintiff failed to provide the Court with any clear factual evidence regarding MPH's status, such as records of name registration or authorization for plaintiff to use the name or represent the group; its constitution; its by-laws; minutes of meetings and assemblies; etc.; [ 15 ] WHEREAS , at trial, plaintiff's testimony in this regard was nebulous and confusing; [ 16 ] WHEREAS , what is more, defendant filed several documents (exhibit D-9 en liasse) which clearly show that MPH has existed for several years and has several executive members, including plaintiff, as president, although the exact nature of the entity remains nebulous; [ 17 ] WHEREAS , therefore, plaintiff's allegations that MPH is or was his alter ego, remain unsubstantiated; [ 18 ] GIVEN

article 1440 of the Civil Code of Quebec ; [ 19 ] WHEREAS the Court cannot conclude, based on the evidence adduced at trial, that plaintiff was acting on his own behalf when he signed agreement P-3; [ 20 ] WHEREAS , furthermore, plaintiff failed to establish that the funds used to pay defendant were his own; [ 21 ] WHEREAS plaintiff did not provide personal banking records or a paper trail of the provenance of the funds, and bank drafts

P-4 are insufficient evidence in this regard; [22] WHEREAS plaintiff did not prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that he has sufficient interest to bring the judicialapplication; [23] WHEREAS, with regards to the cross-demand, there is no basis for defendant's claim for extrajudicial fees (Viel c.

Entreprisesimmobilières du terroir Ltée);[1] [24] WHEREAS, lastly, the counter-claim for trouble and inconvenience, as described at trial by defendant's principal Shant Adam-Iskandar, is in relation to dealings defendant had with co-contractor MPH, and therefore cannot be granted; WHEREFORE THE COURT HEREBY: DISMISSES the amended motion to institute proceedings; DISMISSES defendant's cross-demand; Each party paying its own costs. __________________________________ ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q.

Me Jeffrey DalfenLEGAL LOGIK INC.Lawyers for plaintiff Me Luc LachanceASTELL LACHANCE DU SABLON DE SUALawyers for defendant Dates of hearing: February 24 and 25, 2016 [1] (QC CA), [2002] R.J.Q. 1262 (C.A.)