2016 QCCA 1258, 2016 QCCA 1258

156158 Canada inc. c. Québec (Attorney General) 2016 QCCA 1258 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-10-006153-165 (500-36-007519-153, 500-36-007739-157, 500-36-007740-155, 500-36-007741-153, 500-36- 007742-151, 500-36-007743-159, 500-36-007744-157, 500-36-007745-154, 500-36-007746- 152, 500-36-007747-150, 500-36-007748-158, 500-36-007749-156 et 500-36-007750-154) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: August 3, 2016 THE HONOURABLE NICHOLAS KASIRER, J.A. APPELLANTS ATTORNEY 156158 CANADA INC. MUNDI CANADA INC.

SERVICE DE RÉPARATION DE CONTENEURS FRIGORIFIQUES DU CANADA INC ALLAN ANAWATI ANALYSE NIRA INC. 176410 CANADA INC. SHERIL LIN INC. STANLEY & MURIEL REID LES INDUSTRIES GARATNIES LTEE SCOTT LEMAY 3831426 CANADA INC. Mtre CHARLES O’BRIEN (Charles O’Brien) RESPONDENT ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC Mtre ÉRIC CANTIN (Direction générale des affaires juridiques et législatives) RESPONDENT ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL AND PENAL PROSECUTIONS Mtre MARIE-ÊVe fréchette (Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales) DESCRIPTION: Appellants’ motion to increase the number of pages of their factum and other requests relating to the preparation of their factum Appellants’ motion to extend the delays to file a factum Clerk: Annabel David Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING 9 : 37 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel.

Mtre O’Brien submits that his motions are not contested and that he amended the motion to increase the number of page of his factum. 9 : 38 Mtre O’Brien produces his amended motion. Mtre Cantin states that neither motion is contested.

Suspension of the hearing. 9 : 50 The hearing is resumed. 9 : 51 The judge grants Mtre O’Brien’s motion to extend the time limit to file his factum. 9 : 53 The judge grants Mtre O’Brien’s motion to file his exhibits in the same matter they were produced in low Courts. 9 : 55 Mtre O’Brien’s representations on his motion to increase the number of pages of his factum. 9 : 56 The judge states that 40 pages would be a sufficient amount in this case, which both parties agree, with reasons to be recorded on the minutes of the hearing. 9 : 57 Conclusion of the hearing. (

s) Annabel David Clerk BY THE JUDGE

JUDGMENT [1] Appellants present two motions pertaining to the filing of their factum on appeal. [2] First, they have petitioned for an extension of the time limit within which to prepare the factum. [3] Second, they seek authorization to increase the number of pages devoted to the argument portion of their factum from theprescribed thirty pages to fifty pages. They also ask for permission to reproduce certain exhibits in a manner that departs from the normrequired for

Schedule III of the factum in the Rules of the Court of Appeal of Quebec in Criminal Matters. [4] Their counsel contends that more pages and more time are necessary given the number of grounds of appeal and theircomplexity, noting that the authorizing judge asked the parties to comment on whether the various grounds advanced amounted toquestions of law alone within the meaning of

section 291 C.P.P. Counsel also states that as a sole practitioner, he requires additional timeto do this complex work correctly. *** [5] Respondents do not contest the request to extend the time limit to file the factum. [6] I note that the motion was made before the time limit for filing the factum expired. In light of the complexity of the argumentsand with due consideration to counsel’s circumstances as a sole practitioner, I am of the view the time limit may be extended pursuant tosection 71(

e) of the Rules until 4:30 p.m. on August 23, 2016. *** [7] As to the motion to modify the length and form of the factum, here again respondents do not contest the motion. [8] Appellants request that they be authorized to file exhibits in distinct volumes as they had been filed in the courts below.Proceeding in this manner, they say, will allow them to reduce the cost of producing

Schedule III of the factum. The cost saving toappellants is, in the present circumstances, an appropriate justification for allowing them to file the exhibits in the manner indicated intheir motion. [9] The request to add 20 pages to the argument portion of their brief shall be granted in part. In my view, appellants’ counsel hasmade a case for a ten page extension but no more. [10] Concision in written argument on appeal is not an abstract virtue. The thirty-page rule encourages a party in appeal to focus themind, which often results in the exclusion of non-essential and distracting submissions from a factum.

A judge in chambers must notextend the page limit too readily: see the helpful explanations offered by my colleagues Guy Gagnon, J.A. in Lorrain v. Pétro-Canada,2012 QCCA 586 and Marie St-Pierre, J.A. in Softmedical Inc. v. Daabous, 2015 QCCA 1533. By championing of “succinctness” and“concision” in the applicable rules of practice and of procedure, the powers that be seek to reduce overall delays and costs in theadministration of the courts. Judges in other settings have pointed to similar legislative language to explain why motions to extendwritten argument should be granted sparingly: see, e.g., R. v.

Candir, 2008 ONCA 773, para. [4] (per Borins, J.A., in chambers) and,more generally, John I. Laskin, “Forget the Windup and Make the Pitch: Some Suggestions for Writing More Persuasive Factums”(1999) 18 Adv. Soc. J. No. 2, p. 3 and David Stratas, “Writing up the Facts and Winning Big: Some Secrets of the Best Writers of LegalSubmissions” (2011 paper, consulted on the Federal Court of Appeal website). [11] Taken alone, the number of arguments advanced by the appellants cannot be the measure.

But complexity of the issues to betreated has been recognized as a justification as long as complexity is “demonstrated”, not merely “asserted”, to invoke the helpfullanguage of Stratas, J.A. in Canada v. General Electric Capital Canada Inc. 2010 FCA 92 , 2010 F.C.A. 92 (in chambers). [12] Appellants have convinced me that a 40-page limit is justified by reason of the complexity of the jurisprudence that must betreated in the multiple Charter arguments for which leave was granted.

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the undersigned: [13] GRANTS the motion to extend the time limit to file appellants’ factum until August 23, 2016 at 4:30 p.m. [14] GRANTS the motion to modify the appellants’ factum in part; [15] AUTHORIZES the appellants to file a factum in which the Argument, within the meaning of

section 70(

e) of the Rules of theCourt of Appeal of Quebec in Criminal Matters, shall not exceed 40 pages; [16] AUTHORIZES the appellants to file exhibits D-1 to D-16, as well as exhibits PGQ-1 to PGQ-6, in seven volumes as indicatedin the motion; [17] Without legal costs. NICHOLAS KASIRER, J.A.