2024 QCCS 23, 2024 QCCS 23

Investbank PSC c. Ajjaoui 2024 QCCS 23 SUPERIOR COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL No: 500-17-117370-216 DATE: January 8, 2024 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HONOURABLE CAROL COHEN, J.S.C. ______________________________________________________________________ INVESTBANK P.S.C. Plaintiff v. FADI ATEF AJJAOUI and MAHA AJJAOUI and TIQAH B.V. (NL) Defendants LES COURS DU ROI INVESTMENT COMPANY and LCDR MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT INC.

Defendants/Garnishees ______________________________________________________________________ TRANSCRIPTION OF JUDGMENT AND REASONS FOR JUDGMENT [1] ON OBJECTIONS RENDERED VERBALLY ON JANUARY 4 TH , 2024 ______________________________________________________________________ OVERVIEW [ 1 ] The Court is seized with a series of objections as well as an opposition to the withdrawal of an affidavit signed by one of the defendants, Fadi Ajjaoui (« Ajjaoui »).

FACTS AND RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS [ 2 ] In the present action, as amended on August 25 th , 2021 (the « Action »), Plaintiff InvestBank P.S.C. (« Investbank ») claims from Defendant Ajjaoui an amount of $90,152,333 CND (the « Debt ») as well as the assistance of the Court to protect its right to exercise its claim on the assets of Ajjaoui, specifically shares of the other Defendants and Garnishees that it alleges Ajjaoui transferred fraudulently, notably to his sister Maha Ajjaoui (“Maha”) and to Tiqah B.V. (“Tiqah”). [ 3 ] The Debt arises from a Facility Agreement between Plaintiff and a company called Seidco in September 2017 (the “Facility Agreement”).

Seidco was previously owned by Ajjaoui’s late father Atef Ajjaoui (« Atef »), who passed away in September 2016. The Action alleges that Ajjaoui currently owns 49% of the shares of Seidco. [ 4 ] Seidco’s obligations pursuant to the Facility Agreement were guaranteed by an irrevocable undertaking executed on September 19 th , 2017, from Ajjaoui to cover any Seidco shortfall from his personal sources of income (the “Undertaking”).

Proceedings against Ajjaoui seeking reimbursement of monies owed to Plaintiff by Seidco and ajjaoui pursuant to the Facility Agreement and Undertaking were initiated in the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) in 2020 (the “UAE Proceedings”). These UAE Proceedings are still pending. [ 5 ] Defendants Tiqah B.V. (« Tiqah »), Les Cours du Roi Investment Company (« LCDR ») and LCDR Management and Development Inc (« LCDR Management » ) are compagnies Plaintiff alleges that Ajjaoui owns, controls and/or in which he has or had an interest. [ 6 ] LCDR and LCDR Management are companies incorporated in Quebec.

LCDR owns at least four properties in Montreal, including a property on Ste Catherine Street and several lots on MacKay (the “Montreal Properties”). LCDR Management manages the Montreal Properties. Atef was the initial shareholder of LCDR and in August 2017, Ajjaoui was added as shareholder, President and Secretary of LCDR. Carolyne Hansen is the wife of Ajjaoui and is presently treasurer of LCDR and LCDR Management. [ 7 ] The Action was instituted in Quebec on April 7 th , 2021. At paragraph 14 of the initial Action, Plaintiff alleged that Ajjaoui had

transferred his shares of LCDR to his sister Maha, and possibly to Tiqah “ in fraud of the rights of Investbank, to render himself insolvent or, at the very least, to avoid the realization by Investbank of its substantial financial claims against Fadi Ajjaoui and his assets in Quebec ”.

Further to this claim, on April 11 th , 2021, Plaintiff filed a request for seizure before judgment of Defendants’ shares in LCDR and LCDR Management, which was supported by an affidavit of Michel George Yazigi, head of the Corporate Remedial and Recovery Department of Plaintiff, dated April 11 th , 2021 (the “Yazigi Affidavit”). [ 8 ] Before continuing with the chronology of proceedings, it is important to note changes in the attorneys representing the parties. The Action was instituted on behalf of Plaintiff in April 2021 by Me Cara Cameron of the firm of Davies.

An appearance was filed by the firm of Woods for the Defendants on April 19 th , 2021. On March 15 th , 2022, Woods was replaced by Kaufman Lawyers for Defendants. Eight months later, in November 2022, Me Cameron left Davies and moved to the firm of Woods. Woods then appeared on behalf of Plaintiff from December 2 nd , 2022 until January 19 th , 2023, when Davies once again began representing Plaintiff.

The Court will return to this issue below. [ 9 ] Plaintiff’s request for a seizure before judgment was authorized by Justice Karen Rogers on April 12 th , 2021, and a seizure before judgment by garnishment of the shares of Ajjaoui, Maha and Tiqah in the Quebec companies LCDR and LCDR Management was executed on April 13 th , 2021. [ 10 ] On April 19 th , 2021, Defendant Ajjaoui and the Garnishees filed a motion to quash the seizure before judgment (the “Motion to Quash”).

This Motion to Quash was not supported by an affidavit. [ 11 ] On May 13 th , 2021, Justice Christian Brossard rendered a safeguard order, taking acte of the undertakings of LCDR and LCDR Management inter alia not to encumber the Montreal Properties nor to record any change of ownership of their shares. [ 12 ] On May 21 st , 2021, Carolyne Hansen filed a negative declaration on behalf of both LCDR and LCDR Management, in which she stated that there are no declared but unpaid dividends in the companies “ payable to any shareholders, including Fadi Atef Ajjaoui, Maha Ajjaoui and Tiqah B.V .” [ 13 ] Several other proceedings, examinations, notices for case management and judgments followed, which need not be set out in detail here, other than the following: [ 14 ] On June 21 st , 2021, Carolyne Hansen was examined on the negative declarations she filed on behalf of Garnishees LCDR and LCDR Management. [ 15 ] On October 13 th , 2021, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Action and for a declaration that Plaintiff’s conduct is “ vexatious, quarrelsome, and abusive ” (the “Motion to Dismiss”).

No affidavit was attached to the Motion to Dismiss, which was addressed to Plaintiff care of Me Cameron at Davies. [ 16 ] On October 20 th , 2021, Justice Louis Charette dismissed the Motion to Quash on the ground that the Yazigi Affidavit was sufficient in light of the facts alleged and applicable jurisprudence.

No hearing was held on falsity and the judgment was not appealed. [ 17 ] Defendants/Garnishees filed their Defense to the Action on January 11 th , 2022, supported by a series of exhibits. [ 18 ] On January 19 th , 2022, Defendants filed a motion to stay the Action filed by Plaintiff in Quebec, inter alia in light of developments in the UAE Proceedings (the “Motion to Stay Proceedings”).

No affidavit was attached to the Motion to Stay Proceedings, which has now been continued sine die by consent. [ 19 ] On January 21 st , 2022, Defendant Ajjaoui filed an affidavit (the “Ajjaoui Affidavit”) which dealt in detail with the Yazigi Affidavit, including a claim at paragraphs 17 and 18 that statements made by Yazigi were “ false and defamatory ”. The Ajjaoui Affidavit was not attached to any motion filed by Defendants, although Defendants allege that it was filed in support of the Motion to Quash and the Motion to Dismiss.

On that same day, namely on January 21 st , 2022, Me Emilie St-Pierre of Woods, one of the attorneys for Defendants/Garnishees at that time, signed an affidavit in support of the Motion to Dismiss, which had been filed on October 13 th , 2021, several months previously. [ 20 ] On January 24 th , 2022, Justice Yves Poirier pronounced a series of case management orders with respect to the Motion to Dismiss, the Motion to Stay and the Negative Declarations filed by Defendant/Garnishees.

In particular, he noted that the “ affidavit transmis ce jour au procureur en demande ”, presumably the affidavits signed by Ajjaoui and Me St-Pierre on January 21 st , 2022, “ constituent l’ensemble des éléments visant à obtenir le rejet de la procédure “ (presumably the Motion to Dismiss), and that no amendment or supplementary affidavits would be filed in support of the Motion to Dismiss. Justice Poirier also authorized an examination of “the affiant” (Ajjaoui), which was to take place no later than March 18 th , 2022, and which would be limited to two hours.

In addition, Justice Poirier noted that there would be no need for a hearing on the veracity aspect of the Motion to Quash, given its dismissal on sufficiency and given that this would be a repetition of the claims set out by Defendants in their Motion to Dismiss - “ qui ferait double emploi avec la requête en rejet “. [ 21 ] The examination of Ajjaoui on his Affidavit was set for March 16 th , 2022. [ 22 ] However, at Ajjaoui’s request, his examination was cancelled as a result of the substitution of Woods by Kauffman Lawyers, which had just taken place in the preceding days. [ 23 ] On May 4 th , 2022, Justice Poirier once again pronounced a series of case management orders.

The procès-verbal of that hearing

notes inter alia the following representations by Me Major for Plaintiff: “ difficulté, refus d'interroger M. Ajjaoui, insolvabilité aux EAU, affidavit de M. Ajjaoui, objections, aucune réponse, suspension des procédures, Me St-Pierre, interrogatoires au 16 mars, substitution de Me St-Pierre, retrait de l’affidavit de Me St-Pierre, prolongation de délai, droit d’interroger ». Justice Poirier stipulated that in the circumstances, the examination of Ajjaoui would take place no later than July 15 th , 2022, adding that “ Dans l’hypothèse où ce dernier ne participerait pas à cet interrogatoire, la

partie adverse pourra présenter une demande en forclusion relative à l’avis d’opposition ainsi qu’une demande en rejet “. [ 24 ] No mention was made by Defendants before Justice Poirier of the possibility of withdrawing the Ajjaoui Affidavit, nor of the possibility of withdrawing the Motion to Dismiss. [ 25 ] The examination of Ajjaoui was then fixed by consent for July 13 th , 2022, by email exchange dated May 31 st and June 1 st , 2022. [ 26 ] On July 7 th , 2022, Defendants’ attorneys advised Plaintiff that both the Ajjaoui Affidavit and the Motion to Dismiss were being withdrawn from the file. [ 27 ] On July 8 th , 2022, Plaintiff, still acting through Me Cameron of Davies, filed an Opposition to the withdrawal of the Ajjaoui Affidavit. [ 28 ] On July 13 th , 2022, the examination of Ajjaoui on his January 21 st Affidavit took place under reserve of the withdrawal and Opposition.

The undersigned is called upon, as part of the first objection before the Court, to decide if the Ajjaoui Affidavit should remain in the file and if the transcript of his examination should form part of the Court record. [ 29 ] As noted above, in November 2022, Me Cameron left Davies and joined the firm of Woods, which then appeared shortly thereafter for Plaintiff in the present file, in replacement of Davies. The file was suspended by consent until January 2022, when Davies reappeared for Plaintiff.

The issue of the substitution of attorneys and any possible conflict of interest has now been resolved by consent of all of the parties and a written consent signed by the parties, the attorneys and Me Cameron will be filed into the Court record by February 5 th , 2024. [ 30 ] On August 8 th , 2023, Ajjaoui, as “President and Secretary” of LCDR and of LCDR management, signed two new amended negative declarations on behalf of each of those companies and he was then examined on September 11 th , 2023 and October 18 th , 2023.

The objections before the undersigned arise from those examinations. [ 31 ] The Court is now called upon to adjudicate upon the Opposition by Plaintiff to the withdrawal of the Ajjaoui Affidavit and to the filing of the examination of Ajjaoui which took place on July 13 th 2022, as well as objections arising from the examinations of Ajjaoui on July 13 th , 2022 (if it is allowed into the Court record) as well as his examinations of September 11 th , 2023 and October 18 th , 2023.

All objections arising from the examination of Carolyne Hansen on June 21 st , 2021, have been decided by another judge or resolved by consent. OPPOSITION TO THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE AJJAOUI AFFIDAVIT [ 32 ] Both parties submit

article 206 of the Code of civil procedure (Ccp), which states that at “ any time before judgment, the parties may withdraw or amend a pleading without it being necessary to obtain an authorization from the court, provided doing so does not delay the proceeding and is not contrary to the interests of justice ”. It should be noted that the French version reads “ si cela ne retarde pas le déroulement de l’instance ”, which is far more precise that the generic “ delay of the proceeding ”. [ 33 ] Thus, a party (although the

article stipulates “parties” in the plural but it seems clear that consent of both parties is not required) may withdraw a proceeding without authorization by the Court if it does not cause delay in the ongoing proceedings and if it is not contrary to the interests of justice. [ 34 ] Plaintiff has argued that the withdrawal of the Ajjaoui Affidavit, six months after it had been deposited into the Court record and adjudicated upon in judgments, in particular those rendered by Justice Poirier, is contrary to the interests of justice. [ 35 ] Defendants submit that they had a right to withdraw the Ajjaoui Affidavit once the Motion to Dismiss which it allegedly supported was also withdrawn. [ 36 ] Plaintiff relies upon the following two decisions.

In the case of AB v Google [2] , the Superior Court underlined that all the circumstances of a file must be taken into consideration and weighed one against the other when applying

article 206 C.c.p. to an amendment or to a withdrawal of a proceeding without authorization.

In Leblanc [3] , the Court of Appeal added that the trial judge has a discretionary power in examining the criteria set out in the Code of civil procedure, and the Court of Appeal also refers to articles 9, 18, 19 and 20 C.c.p. which underline the guiding principles of proportionality, proper case management and the duty of cooperation and information by all parties and their attorneys. [ 37 ] Plaintiff submits that the withdrawal of the Ajjaoui Affidavit, on the eve of the new date set for the examination of the affiant following two Court authorizations, was an attempt to evade his examination, an examination which had twice been ordered by Justice Poirier, the second time subject to sanctions.

Plaintiff adds that it would suffer prejudice if the Ajjaoui Affidavit and subsequent examination were to be withdrawn. [ 38 ] Defendants’ attorney submitted the decision of AG Canada v. 555 Carrière Holdings (“AG Canada”) [4] in support of its argument, alleging that when the proceeding supported by an affidavit is withdrawn, the affidavit is no longer required and can be

withdrawn without authorization pursuant to

article 206 Ccp. [ 39 ] The Court agrees with the submissions made by Plaintiff’s attorneys and will exercise its discretion to allow the Opposition and refuse the withdrawal of the Ajjaoui Affidavit. [ 40 ] The AG Canada case has no application here. The Ajjaoui Affidavit was not filed simply in support of a specific motion or proceeding, but as a stand-alone document.

Indeed, paragraph 2 of the Ajjaoui Affidavit states that its purpose is to address “ false and incorrect statements made in the Yazigi Affidavit and the Originating Application that are relevant to the seizures before judgment ” and the Yazigi Affidavit remains in the Court record today. [ 41 ] Furthermore, although the Ajjaoui Affidavit became essential in support of the Motion to Dismiss once the affidavit of Emilie St-Pierre, Defendant’s former counsel, was withdrawn following the change of attorneys, the withdrawal of the Motion to Dismiss at the same time as the withdrawal of the Ajjaoui Affidvait in July 2022, is tardy. [ 42 ] The authorization of the examination of Ajjaoui on his Affidavit appears clearly from the two decisions rendered by Justice Poirier in January and May 2022.

These decisions were not appealed, and it is now too late to avoid an examination on the Ajjaoui Affidavit by withdrawing both the Affidavit and the Motion to Dismiss months later, even if the Affidavit had been designed to support the Motion to Dismiss, which it was not. Justice Poirier had already rendered orders in respect of both proceedings. [ 43 ] The Court therefore allows the Opposition to the withdrawal of the Ajjaoui affidavit, orders that the Affidavit remain in the Court record and retroactively authorizes the examination of Ajjaoui on his Affidavit of Jan 2022 which took place on July 13 th , 2022.

OBJECTIONS [ 44 ] On the balance of the objections, the Court renders the following judgments. [ 45 ] Objection 2 loses its object given the decision rendered above concerning the the Opposition to the withdrawal of the Ajjaoui Affidavit, and the question U-30 is withdrawn. [ 46 ] On objections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, the questions are withdrawn. [ 47 ] On objection 8 to question U-16, the Court renders the following judgment : GIVEN paragraph 84 of the defence, in which the defendant alleges Canadian tax liability of the estate of Atef Ajjaoui, and a resulting loan of $9,000,000 from Caisse Desjardins as well as a revolving credit, the Court DISMISSES the objection and allows Plaintiff to ask for a description of taxes consequences in Canada resulting from Atef Ajjaoui’s death, to indicate the amount of the tax liability and provide copies of the government tax returns and notices of assessment reflecting those consequences. [ 48 ] On objection 8-21, the question is withdrawn. [ 49 ] On objections 9-34 à 9-40, the objections are withdrawn. [ 50 ] On objection 9-U-6, the Court DISMISSES the objection in part.

Defendants will provide a detailed description and list with dates of documents and information provided to Caisse Desjardins, subject to Plaintiff’s right to obtain copies of these documents, which issue is deferred to the next judge to be seized with this matter. [ 51 ] On objections 9- U18 and U20, the objections are withdrawn. [ 52 ] On objection 10-O-5, the objection is withdrawn. [ 53 ] On objection 11-33, the question is withdrawn. [ 54 ] On objection 11-41 through 44, the objection is dismissed and the Court AUTHORIZES the production of the documents requested in subparagraphs 41 through 44 inclusive. [ 55 ] On objection 11-45, the question is withdrawn. [ 56 ] On objection 12-32, the request is premature and Plaintiff withdraws the question. [ 57 ] On objection 13, the objection is withdrawn. [ 58 ] On objections 14-O-15, 10 and 13, the questions are withdrawn. [ 59 ] On objections 22 and 23, the information was provided. [ 60 ] On objections 14 U-7, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 31, the Court renders the following decision: [ 61 ] GIVEN that Mr.

Ajjaoui initially declared not having received dividends from LCDR investments; [ 62 ] GIVEN that at pages 56 and 57 of the examination dated July 13 th , 2022, Mr. Ajjaoui’s attorney declared that dividends were indeed declared in 2017 and 2018; [ 63 ] GIVEN that at page 58 of the examination of Mr. Ajjaoui dated July 13th, 2022, he declares that he did not receive any dividends since the negative declarations dated May 21 st , 2021 and August 8 th , 2023; [ 64 ] GIVEN the allegations of Mr. Ajjaoui in the negative declaration dated August 8th, 2023 to the effect that the 100 common

shares registered in the name of Tiqah B.V. ought not to have been issued; For these reasons, the Court: [ 65 ] DISMISSES the objections; ORDERS the production of the financial statements of LCDR for fiscal years 2015 to 2023 inclusive and reserves plaintiff’s rights to ask again for the copies of that company's tax returns and notices of assessment once the financial statements were filed; [ 66 ] On objection 15-3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 10 and 19, the parties have reached a consent as to the objections and questions asked, which consent shall form part of the conclusions of the present judgment.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 67 ] ALLOWS the Opposition to the withdrawal of the Ajjaoui affidavit; [ 68 ] ORDERS that the Ajjaoui Affidavit of January 21 st , 2021 remain in the Court record; [ 69 ] AUTHORIZES retroactively the examination of Ajjaoui on his Affidavit dated January 21 st , 2021, which examination took place on July 13 th , 2022. [ 70 ] On objection 8 to question U-16 : GIVEN paragraph 84 of the Defence, in which the Defendant alleges Canadian tax liability of the estate of Atef Ajjaoui, and a resulting loan of $9,000,000 from Caisse Desjardins as well as a revolving line of credit, the Court DISMISSES the objection and allows Plaintiff to ask for a description of taxes consequences in Canada resulting from Atef Ajjaoui’s death, to indicate the amount of the tax liability and provide copies of the government tax returns and notices of assessment reflecting those consequences. [ 71 ] On objection 9-U-6, the Court DISMISSES the objection in part and ORDERS Defendant to provide a detailed description and list with dates of documents and information provided to Caisse Desjardins, subject to Plaintiff’s right to obtain copies of these documents, which issue is deferred to the next judge to be seized with this matter. [ 72 ] On objections 11-41 through 44, the Court: DISMISSES the objections and ORDERS Defendant to provide all documents requested in subparagraphs 41 through 44 inclusive. [ 73 ] On objections 14 U-7, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 31, the Court RENDERS the following judgment: [ 74 ] GIVEN that Mr.

Ajjaoui initially declared not having received dividends from LCDR investments; [ 75 ] GIVEN that at pages 56 and 57 of the examination dated July 13 th , 2022, Mr. Ajjaoui’s attorney declared that dividends were indeed declared in 2017 and 2018; [ 76 ] GIVEN that at page 58 of the examination of Mr. Ajjaoui dated July 13th, 2022, he declares that he did not receive any dividends since the negative declarations dated May 21 st , 2021 and August 8 th , 2023; [ 77 ] GIVEN the allegations of Mr.

Ajjaoui in the negative declaration dated August 8th, 2023 to the effect that the 100 common shares registered in the name of Tiqah B.V. ought not to have been issued; [ 78 ] For these reasons, the Court: [ 79 ] DISMISSES the objections; [ 80 ] ORDERS the production of the financial statements of LCDR for fiscal years 2015 to 2023 inclusive; [ 81 ] RESERVES Plaintiff’s right to ask again for the copies of that company's tax returns and notices of assessment, once the financial statements have been filed. [ 82 ] On objections 15-3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 10 and 19, the Court renders the following judgment, given the consent of the parties: [ 83 ] CONSIDERING that, by way of an Originating Application to Introduce an Instance dated April 7, 2021, the Plaintiff, InvestBank P.S.C., introduced proceedings against the Defendants, Fadi Atef Ajjaoui, Maha Ajjaoui and Tiqah B.V., to set aside transactions on the shares of Les Cours du Roi Investment Company (“ LCDR Investment ”) which would have had the effect of diluting Fadi Ajjaoui’s shareholding; [ 84 ] CONSIDERING the allegations of the Defendant Fadi Atef Ajjaoui, and Defendants/Garnishees LCDR Investment and LCDR Management and Development Inc. stated in the Defence dated January 11, 2022; [ 85 ] CONSIDERING the declarations made by Defendant Fadi Atef Ajjaoui in the Amended Negative Declaration of LCDR Investment dated August 8, 2023; [ 86 ] CONSIDERING the Plaintiff’s document requests dated August 10, 2023, and document requests attached to the Summons served to Defendant Fadi Atef Ajjaoui on September 5, 2023 (the “ Document Requests ”); [ 87 ] CONSIDERING that the Defendants and Defendants/Garnishees’ attorneys, Kaufman Lawyers LLP, stated in a letter dated

September 8, 2023 that for Document Requests number 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 19, Defendant Fadi Atef Ajjaoui “ has no such documents in his possession that would not be the subject of privilege and/or professional secrecy ”; [ 88 ] CONSIDERING that Kaufman Lawyers LLP stated, in a letter dated November 24, 2023 responding to undertakings not objected to taken during Defendant Fadi Atef Ajjaoui’s pre-trial examinations dated September 11, 2023, and October 18, 2023, [5] that Defendant Fadi Atef Ajjaoui either hasn’t been able to locate any documents responsive to the Document Requests, or doesn’t believe such documents exist; [ 89 ] CONSIDERING that Kaufman Lawyers LLP stated, in a letter dated January 4, 2024 responding to Document Requests number 3, and 12, that Defendant Fadi Atef Ajjaoui “ has been unable to locate any responsive documents beyond what has been previously communicated ”; [ 90 ] CONSIDERING discussions that occurred between the Plaintiff, the Defendants, and the Defendants/Garnishees’ attorneys on January 5, 2024; WHEREFORE THE COURT: [ 91 ] TAKES ACTE that the only documents that would have been responsive to Document Requests 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 result from two memos written by attorneys for the defendants’ attorneys, in the context of the current litigation, dealing with the issue of the estate freeze that occurred around 2015 and the ensuing issues of its implementation, which are covered by the litigation privilege; [ 92 ] TAKES ACTE that Kaufman Lawyers LLP confirms having duly informed Defendant Fadi Atef Ajjaoui of his cooperation and disclosure obligations in the context of the pre-trial examinations; [ 93 ] TAKES ACTE of Kaufman Lawyers LLP’s undertaking to inquire with the Defendant Fadi Atef Ajjaoui as to the availability of LCDR Investment’s bank statements, or, alternatively, to obtain an explanation from Defendant Fadi Atef Ajjaoui as to the inaccessibility of the same; [ 94 ] ORDERS that all documents to be filed by Defendants pursuant to the present judgment shall be filed by no later than February 5 th , 2024; [ 95 ] TAKES ACTE of the consent of the parties with respect to the various substitution of attorneys, and to their undertaking that a written consent to this effect, signed by all parties, attorneys and Me Cameron, shall be filed into the Court record by no later than February 5 th , 2024; [ 96 ] THE WHOLE , with costs to follow suit. __________________________________ CAROL COHEN, J.S.C.

M tre Jessica Major M. Arnaud Hoste, stagiaire DAVIES WARD PHILLIPS & VINEBERG LLP Attorneys for the Plaintiff M tre Martin Jutras M tre Michael Schacter KAUFMAN LAWYERS LLP Attorneys for the Defendants Dates of hearing: January 4 and January 5, 2024