2011 QCCA 546, 2011 QCCA 546

Bohbot (Estate of) c. Bohbot 2011 QCCA 546 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-021470-117 (500-17-062688-109) DATE: March 23, 2011 IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HONOURABLE MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. THÉRÈSE WEINBERGER, in her status as liquidator of the estate of the late David Bohbot PETITIONER / Intervener and LEONARD MINTZ, in his status as liquidator of the estate of the late David Bohbot PETITIONER / Intervener and THÉRÈSE WEINBERGER PETITIONER / Defendant v.

DAN BOHBOT RESPONDENT / Plaintiff and VÉRONIQUE BOHBOT IMPLEADED PARTY / impleaded party JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The parties are the co-liquidators of the estate of the late David Bohbot. For a period of approximately four months, in 2010, they sought advice from the law firm of Spiegel Sohmer inc. about their duties as liquidators and the manner in which they should conduct themselves and carry out the liquidation of the estate.

The liquidators met or spoke with a lawyer from Spiegel Sohmer as a group or individually. [ 2 ] In December 2010, the respondent sued the petitioners, and, amongst other conclusions, requested that petitioner Weinberger be replaced as a liquidator of the estate. Spiegel Sohmer inc. appeared for the petitioners and respondent sought their disqualification. [ 3 ] On February 22, 2011, the Superior Court, district of Montreal (the Honourable Mr.

Justice Clément Gascon), disqualified Spiegel Sohmer, and all of its lawyers, from representing the petitioners in their dispute with the respondent. [ 4 ] The petitioners seek leave to appeal from this judgment.

Their motion raises a question that I would frame in the following terms (which do not bind the parties) : Does information of a general or hypothetical character given by a lawyer to a group of persons, outside the context of an actual or anticipated dispute between them and without the lawyer knowing of such dispute, preclude or disqualify the lawyer in question, and his firm, from acting for any of these persons when the dispute arises and one of them sues the others? [ 5 ] Although this question arises in a context where facts are important and the Court might therefore be reluctant to intervene, I am of the view that the matter nevertheless deserves the attention of the Court and that the requirements of art. 29 and 511 C.C.P. are met. [ 6 ] There should be case management of the appeal.

Rules 48 and 49 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal in Civil Matters read as follows: 48. Abandonment. Where the appellant’s arguments and documents standing in lieu of the factum are not served and filed within the established time limit, the appeal shall be deemed to be abandoned and

article 503.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply, mutatis mutandis .

49. Foreclosure. Where the respondent’s argument and, if applicable, documents standing in lieu of the factum are not served and filed within the established time limit, the respondent shall be foreclosed from filing and

article 505 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply, mutatis mutandis. [ 7 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 8 ] ALLOWS the motion for leave to appeal; [ 9 ] ORDERS the suspension of the proceedings in the Superior Court pending the appeal; [ 10 ] PLACES the case on the role of June 17, 2011 . at 9:30 AM, for a hearing of 90 minutes; [ 11 ] ORDERS the appellants, after having served a copy upon the respondent, to file in the office of the Court, no later than April 15, 2011 , four copies of a written argument not exceeding 15 pages, of the exhibits that would normally have made up schedules I, II and III of their factum and of their authorities; [ 12 ] ORDERS the respondent, after having served a copy upon the appellant(s), to file in the office of the Court, no later than May 13, 2011 , four copies of a written argument not exceeding 15 pages, of his supplementary documents and of his authorities; [ 13 ] Costs to follow.

MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. Mtre Barry Landy Spiegel Sohmer inc. For the petitioners liquidators Mtre Louis Samuel De Grandpré Chait For the petitioner Thérèse Weinberger, personally Mtre Luc Arnault Arnault Thibault Cléroux For the Respondent Dan Bohbot Mtre Jean-Pierre Sheppard, absent Robinson Sheppard Shapiro For the impleaded party Véronique Bohbot Date of hearing: March 4, 2011