2020 QCCA 1385, 2020 QCCA 1385

Ehouzou c. Manufacturers Life Insurance Company 2020 QCCA 1385 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-028397-198 ( 500-06-000874-178 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: October 26, 2020 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. STÉPHANE SANSFAÇON, J.A. BENOÎT MOORE, J.A. APPELLANTS COUNSEL PATRICK EHOUZOU CARMEN HODONOU Mtre CLAUDE LÉVESQUE (by conference call) Mtre ALEX VILLEMURE ( Lévesque Jurisconsulte inc. ) (by videoconference) RESPONDENTS COUNSEL MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY MANULIFE FINANCIAL COMPANY BENESURE CANADA INC. BROKER SUPPORT CENTRE INC.

CREDIT SECURTY INSURANCE AGENCY INC. Mtre ALEXANDRE FALLON ( OSLER, HOSKIN & HARCOURT ) (by videoconference) DH CORPORATION (FINASTRA TM) Mtre GUILLAUME BOUDREAU-SIMARD ( Stikeman Elliott ) (by videoconference) JOHN F. LORRIMAN Mtre VINCENT DORÉ ( Clyde & Co .) (by videoconference) On appeal from a judgment rendered on May 9, 2019 by the Honourable Chantal Tremblay of the Superior Court , District of Montreal .

DESCRIPTION: Application of John F. Lorriman to dismiss the appeal (Article 365 C.C.P .) Clerk at the hearing : Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 11:17 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. 11:19 Submissions by Mtre Lévesque. 11:30 Submissions by Mtre Doré. 11:35 Reply by Mtre Lévesque 11:37 Recess 11:43 Resumption of the hearing. 11:43 By the Court: judgment – see page 4.

Robert Osadchuck, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Appellants have appealed the judgment of the Superior Court, District of Montreal (the Honourable Chantal Tremblay) of May 9, 2019 (notice of judgment dated May 21, 2019), dismissing their application to authorize a class action. [ 2 ] The notice of appeal filed with the Court on June 20, 2019 omitted from the enumeration of Respondents, one of the Defendants in first instance, namely the party pleading, John F. Lorriman. It would appear that Appellant’s attorney dropped his name given that he could not be served with the proceeding.

However, no motion for a special mode of service was presented to the Court. [ 3 ] After expiry of the delay to appeal (June 21, 2019), the Appellants filed an amended and then a reamended notice of appeal including Mr. Lorriman in the enumeration of the Respondents. However, they did not seek leave of the Court to appeal the judgment of the Superior Court as against Mr. Lorriman. This was required given the expiry of the delay to appeal. [ 4 ] The attorney of the Appellants was put on notice of this situation by the attorneys of Mr.

Lorriman who refused notification in lieu of service of the amended notices of appeal after expiry of the delays. The attorneys have engaged in an exchange of correspondence between themselves and the office of this Court on the subject. [ 5 ] A motion for special mode of service was finally presented and granted on February 14, 2020 and the notice of appeal was served on Mr. Lorriman care of attorneys for Respondents on March 4, 2020.

Even allowing for the suspension of delays by decree (given the pandemic) more than 6 months had expired since the judgment in first instance. [ 6 ] Though a new party could be added in a notice of appeal by amendment, this must be done within the legal delays or such extension of time as the Court may grant. [ 7 ] No leave to include Mr. Lorriman as a Respondent has been obtained nor sought. Six months have now elapsed since the judgment of the Superior Court, so that leave can no longer be granted (article 363 C.C.P. ). Accordingly, Mr. Lorriman’s attorneys seek the dismissal of the appeal as against him.

They are correct.

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE COURT: [ 8 ] GRANTS the application of John F. Lorriman to dismiss an appeal, with legal costs. [ 9 ] DISMISSES the appeal as against John F. Lorriman with legal costs. MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. STÉPHANE SANSFAÇON, J.A. BENOÎT MOORE, J.A.