2023 QCCA 1526, 2023 QCCA 1526

Al-Husseini c. Invest Bank PSC 2023 QCCA 1526 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-030758-239 ( 500-17-117370-216 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: December 5, 2023 THE HONOURABLE STEPHEN W. HAMILTON, J.A. APPLICANT COUNSEL Ahmad Mohamed Al-Husseini also known as AHMED EL HUSSEINY Mtre Consolato Gattuso M tre Hugo de Koulen ( Gattuso Bouchard Mazzone ) RESPONDENT COUNSEL INVEST BANK P.S.C. Mtre LAURENT CRÉPEAU m tre Justina Di Fazio ( Woods ) IMPLEADED PARTIES 2759-2856 Québec inc. 3043428 CANADA INC.

ABSENT AND UNREPRESENTED DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment rendered in the course of the proceeding on September 15 th , 2023, by the Honourable Sylvain Lussier of the Superior Court , District of Montréal . Clerk at the hearing : Ariane Simard-Trudel Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING 10:00 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. Preliminary remarks by the judge. 10:02 Submissions by Mtre De Koulen. 10:05 Discussion between the judge and Mtre De Koulen. 10:10 Mtre De Koulen resume his submission.

10:18 Discussion between the judge and Mtre De Koulen. 10:26 Mtre De Koulen resume his submission. 10:37 Discussion between the jduge and Mtre De Koulen regarding the hearing on September 14 th , 2023, and the judgement rendered. 10:39 Submission by Mtre Di Fazo. 10:48 Discussion between the judge and Mtre Di Fazo. 10:50 Mtre Di Fazo resume her submission. 11:03 Reply by Mtre De Koulen. 11:04 Discussion between the judge and Mtre De Koulen. 11:17 BY THE JUDGE : Judgement – see page 3. Conclusion of the hearing.

Ariane Simard-Trudel, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the decision of the Honourable Justice Sylvain Lussier not to hear his Application to Discharge Conservatory Measures, but rather to defer the hearing of that application to the trial on the merits. [ 2 ] Justice Lussier’s decision was rendered orally at the hearing on September 15, 2023, in the presence of the attorneys representing the parties. The Petitioner argues that the judge indicated during that hearing that he would render a formal judgment after the hearing, but that did not in fact happen.

As a result, the only judgment is the oral judgment on September 15, 2023, and the 30-day time limit for the motion for leave to appeal started to run on that date. [ 3 ] The motion for leave to appeal was filed on October 30, 2023, after the expiration of the time limit. I therefore do not have jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal, and the petitioner must instead seek leave from the Court.

Any confusion as to whether a formal judgment would be rendered later is a factor that the Court may consider in deciding whether to grant leave after the expiry of the time limit, but it does not have the effect of changing the date on which the time limit started to run. [ 4 ] For these reasons, I will dismiss the motion for leave to appeal. It is not appropriate in the circumstances for me to comment on the other arguments raised by the parties. FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 5 ] DISMISSES the Petitioner’s Demande de permission d’appeler d’un jugement rendu en cours d’instance , without judicial costs.

STEPHEN W. HAMILTON, J.A.