2019 QCCA 1487, 2019 QCCA 1487

Partner Reinsurance Company Ltd. c. Optimum Réassurance inc. 2019 QCCA 1487 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-028535-193 ( 500-11-056724-194 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: September 11, 2019 THE HONOURABLE MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. APPLICANT COUNSEL Partner reinsurance company ltd Mtre Douglas Mitchell m tre miriam clouthier ( IMK s.e.n.c.r.l. ) RESPONDENT COUNSEL Optimum réassurance inc.

Mtre Éric Christian Lefebvre M tre charles-antoine m.péladeau ( Norton Rose Fulbright Canada s.e.n.c.r.l. ) DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment rendered in the course of the proceeding on July 26 2019 by the Honourable Michel A. Pinsonnault of the Superior Court , District of Montreal . Clerk at the hearing : Elisabeth Lepage Courtroom: RC-18

HEARING 9 h 49 Commencement of the hearing. Submissions by Mtre Mitchell. 10 h 03 Submissions by Mtre Lefebvre. 10 h 13 Comments by the Court. 10 h 33 Discussion between the Court and Mtre Mitchell and Mtre Lefebvre regarding the suspension. 10 h40 Judgment – see page 3. 10 h 42 Conclusion of the hearing. Elisabeth Lepage, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Applicant seeks leave to appeal the judgment rendered on July 26, 2019 by the Superior Court, District of Montreal (the Honourable Michel A.

Pinsonnault), dismissing its application to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. [ 2 ] Respondent has sought declaratory relief regarding the respective rights and obligations of the parties stemming from an agreement as amended related to their respective reinsurance businesses. [ 3 ] Judgment dismissing preliminary exceptions do not generally qualify for leave under

article 31 C.C.P. However, where the issue is want of jurisdiction, the judges of our Court have articulated an exception to such principle to avoid situations where judgments on the merits are rendered by a Court ultimately found to lack jurisdiction over the subject matter. [1] [ 4 ] Given the foregoing and the issues raised in the application before me regarding the

interpretation and application of articles 3148 and 3150 C.C.Q. in the context of a declaratory recourse between two reinsurance companies, I believe that it is appropriate that leave be granted. [ 5 ] For the same and obvious reasons, the proceedings in first instance should be suspended pending such appeal. It is impractical to proceed to depositions in this jurisdiction (as suggested by Respondent) according to local rules of procedure where jurisdiction may be declined.

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 6 ] GRANTS the application for leave to appeal; [ 7 ] AUTHORIZES Appellant to institute an appeal from the judgment rendered on July 26, 2019 by the Superior Court, District of Montreal (the Honourable Michel A.

Pinsonnault) in case number 500-11-056724-194; [ 8 ] SUSPENDS proceedings before the Superior Court pending the outcome of the appeal; [ 9 ] PLACES the case on the roll of JANUARY 14, 2020 in room Pierre-Basile-Mignault at 9:30 am, for a hearing of 90 minutes in duration ( 45 minutes for Appellant and 45 minutes for Respondent); [ 10 ] ORDERS Appellant, after having notified a copy upon Respondent, to file in the Office of the Court, no later than OCTOBER 11, 2019, 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; [ 11 ] ORDERS Respondent, after having notified a copy upon Appellant, to file in the Office of the Court, no later than NOVEMBER 12, 2019 , five copies of a written argument not exceeding 20 pages and of his supplementary documents; [ 12 ] 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. [ 13 ] DIRECTS the parties’ attention to Practice Direction G-3 (last amendment: February 27, 2017) encouraging them to attach a technological version to each paper copy of their brief, memorandum and book of authorities. Such technological version should preferably be in Word format but may also be in PDF format enabling key-word searches.

The USB drive is the format preferred by the Court, but CD / DVD-ROM are also accepted; [ 14 ] THE WHOLE , with legal costs to follow the outcome of the appeal. MARK SCHRAGER, J.A.