2015 QCCA 1831, 2015 QCCA 1831

Fleming c. McGill University 2015 QCCA 1831 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-025487-158 (500-22-211123-149) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: November 3, 2015 THE HONOURABLE MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.A. PETITIONER ATTORNEY JAMES FLEMING PERSONALY RESPONDENT ATTORNEY MCGILL UNIVERSITY Mtre ANNIE MARIE BOURGEOIS (Langlois Kronström Desjardins, s.e.n.c.r.l.) DESCRIPTION: Motion for security for costs (Sections 65, 152 and 427 C.C.P.) Clerk: Shirley Thomas Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING

12: 00 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of parties. Submission by Mtre Bourgeois.12: 14 Submission by Mr. Fleming.12: 21 Exchange between Martin Vauclair. J.A. and Mr. Fleming.12: 22 Reply by Mtre Bourgeois.12: 26 Recess.12: 53 Resumption of the hearing.12: 53 By the Judge: Judgment – See page 3.12: 55 Conclusion of the hearing.

SHIRLEY THOMASClerk BY THE JUDGE JUDGMENT [1] James Fleming lost in the first instance and now appeals the decision, looking to set it aside and also to have the RespondentMcGill University (McGill) condemned to pay damages totalling fifty-two thousand two-hundred and fifty-two dollars ($52,252). [2] McGill seeks a security of 2061$, within ten (10) days of the judgement, for the anticipated costs resulting from the appeal.The motion for surety is triggered by the fact that M. Fleming resides in England, which is not contested. [3] Mr Fleming claims he is impecunious. He would be able to deposit 300$ or 400$.

Anything more would put his ability toappeal in jeopardy. [4] The fact that M. Flemming resides outside Quebec is a factor to consider. No doubt the reasoning and opinion of my colleagueChamberland in Forestships International Ltd. c. Administration de la voie maritime du St-Laurent (QC CA), [1994]R.D.J. 192 are applicable. To put it simply, in a few words, there is nothing unjust to impose security on the loosing party in the firstinstance to guarantee the fees on appeal.

See also Bell v Molson 2013 QCCA 377. [5] It is difficult, however, to understand why McGill did not immediately file a motion for dismissal of the appeal since it arguesthe “grounds of appeal … seem trivial”: Motion, para. 10. It may be said that such a motion would not have used more resources and, ifsuccessful, would put an early end to the appeal. FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [6] GRANTS in part the motion; [7] ORDERS James Flemming to provide security of $300 for the costs anticipated by the Respondent McGill University in theappeal, within sixty (60) days of this judgment; [8] Costs to follow.

MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.A.