2022 QCCA 88, 2022 QCCA 88

Apple Canada inc. c. Autorité des marchés financiers 2022 QCCA 88 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-029857-224 ( 500-11-060051-212 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: January 21, 2022 THE HONOURABLE MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. APPLICANT COUNSEL Apple Canada inc.

Mtre Eric Vallières Mtre Joséane Chrétien ( McMillan ) By videoconference RESPONDENT COUNSEL Autorité des marchés financiers Mtre Amélie Roy Mtre Aurélie Gauthier ( Autorité des marchés financiers ) By videoconference IMPLEADED PARTIES Jeanne Daignault suzanne proulx Absent and unrepresented DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal (Articles 31 and 357 C.c.p.). Clerk at the hearing : René Gutknecht Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING 11:06 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. 11:07 Submissions by Mtre Vallière. 11:28 Submissions by Mtre Gauthier. 11:43 BY THE JUDGE: Judgment – see page 3.

11:47 Conclusion of the hearing.

René Gutknecht, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Petitioner seeks leave to appeal the judgment rendered on November 23, 2021 by the Superior Court, District of Montreal (the Honourable Marie Anne Paquette) (notice of judgment December 2, 2021), dismissing its application for judicial review of a decision of Respondent and to quash subpoenas issued by Respondent in furtherance of that decision. [ 2 ] Respondent decided to inquire into AppleCare+ contracts since it considers these to be contracts of insurance over which it would have jurisdiction. [ 3 ] Petitioner considers that the contracts are extended or additional warranties governed, inter alia by the Consumer Protection Act [1] and subject to control by the Office de la protection du consommateur.

Petitioner adds that it is not subject to the Respondent’s jurisdiction under the Insurers Act [2] [ 4 ] The judge applied a standard of reasonableness to Respondent’s decision to investigate (and implicitly the decision that it had the jurisdiction to do so).

The judge does not per se qualify the AppleCare+ contracts as insurance apparently being of the opinion that the contracts could also be additional warranties subject to the concurrent jurisdiction of the Office de la protection du consommateur. [ 5 ] Petitioner maintains that a standard of correctness is applicable since the issue for decision is “related to the jurisdictional boundaries between two or more administrative bodies” [3] and that Respondent does not benefit from any privative clause given the question of jurisdiction, Respondent contends that there is no effective conflict in jurisdiction to the extent that Respondent is merely investigating. [ 6 ] Petitioner has raised questions which merit adjudication by the Court and qualify for leave pursuant to

Article 30 C.C.P. FOR ALL THE ABOVE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 7 ] GRANTS Petitioner’s Application for leave to appeal; [ 8 ] GRANTS leave to appeal the judgment rendered on November 23, 2021 by the Superior Court, District of Montreal (the Honourable Marie Anne Paquette) in Superior Court’s record 500-11-060051-212; [ 9 ] ORDERS the appellant, after having notified a copy upon the respondent(s), to file in the Office of the Court, no later than (March 22, 2022) , five copies of a written argument not exceeding (20) pages.

All documents necessary for the adjudication of the appeal (judgment under appeal, pleadings, excerpts from depositions, etc.) shall be attached; [ 10 ] ORDERS the respondent(s), after having notified a copy upon the appellant(s), to file in the Office of the Court, no later than (April 27, 2022) , five copies of a written argument not exceeding (20) pages and of his supplementary documents; [ 11 ] DIRECTS the parties’ attention to

article 376 C.C.P. and

section 55 of the Civil Practice Regulation , which read as follows: 376. The appeal lapses if the appellant does not file a brief or a memorandum within the time limit for filing. The appellate clerk issues a certificate of lapse of appeal, unless an appellate judge is seized of an application for an extension. A respondent or any other party that does not make a timely filing of its brief or memorandum is precluded from filing and cannot be heard at the hearing unless so authorized by the Court of Appeal. 55. Format. The memorandum shall include a title page, a table of contents and be paginated consecutively.

The provisions relating to briefs (including the final requirements) apply to memoranda with the necessary adaptations. [ 12 ] REFERS the file to the Master of the Rolls to determine the date of a hearing of 120 minutes in duration ( 60 minutes for the appellant and 60 minutes for the respondent); [ 13 ] THE WHOLE , legal costs to follow the outcome of the appeal. MARK SCHRAGER, J.A.