2021 QCCA 673, 2021 QCCA 673

S.M. c. Sternthal Katznelson Montigny 2021 QCCA 673 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-028334-191 ( 500-17-082346-142 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: April 21, 2021 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS DOYON, J.A. GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE, J.A. LUCIE FOURNIER, J.A. APPELLANT COUNSEL s. M .

Mtre brahm l. campbell ( Campbell Cohen ) By videoconference RESPONDENT COUNSEL sternthal katznelson montigny llp Mtre alexandre brosseau-wery ( Kugler, Kandestin ) By videoconference On ap peal from a judgment rendered on April 23, 2019 , by the Honourable Brian Riordan of the Superior Court , District of Montreal . NATURE OF THE APPEAL: Professional liability– Counsel – Damages. Clerk at the hearing : Lesly Ramos Courtroom: Antonio-Lamer HEARING

9:30 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. 9:33 Submissions by Mtre Campbell. 9:36 Comments by the Court concerning the issue of quantum. 9:39 Mtre Campbell resumes his submissions. 9:58 Question by the Court and response by Mtre Cambell. 10:02 Mtre Campbell resumes his submissions 10:16 Recess of the hearing. 10:21 Resumption of the hearing. The Court advises Mtre Brosseau-Wery that it will not be necessary to hear his submissions. 10:22 BY THE COURT : Judgment – see page 3. 10:23 Conclusion of the hearing.

Lesly Ramos, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The trial judge granted the Appellant’s action in damages in part against the Respondent law firm as a result of its failure to divulge a conflict of interest while representing him in a highly contentious curatorship matter. [ 2 ] The Appellant was awarded moral damages of $10,000. The trial judge dismissed his other claims pertaining to the reimbursement of the legal fees paid to the Respondent in the curatorship matter, as well as his traveling expenses to Montreal and his claim for punitive damages.

He also refused to award him legal costs, after he qualified the sums claimed as being “outlandish and […] bordered on the abusive”. [ 3 ] The Appellant is appealing the award, arguing that the trial judge failed to consider the serious nature of the professional breach of conduct and the evidence adduced at trial. [ 4 ] He also relies on Salomon c.

Matte-Thompson [1] in which the same attorney found to be in conflict of interest in the case at hand, Mtre Salomon, was condemned to reimburse a number of investors for their losses as a result of his professional negligence. [ 5 ] Regarding this last case, it must be pointed out that the facts and the nature of the damages claimed are entirely different and bear no relevance to the case at hand, other than the fact that the same attorney was sued in professional negligence. [ 6 ] The standard of review in appeal of an award in damages is well established. It is strict, as underlined by this Court in M.G. c .

Pinsonneault [2] : [240] La norme d’intervention d’une cour d’appel en matière de dommages est connue et a été maintes fois répétée. Dans Andrews c. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd. , le juge Dickson la résume en ces termes : En guise d’introduction, il convient de rappeler qu’aucune cour d’appel n’est fondée à modifier le montant des dommages-intérêts accordés en première instance simplement parce qu’elle aurait alloué un montant différent si elle avait entendu l’affaire en premier lieu.

Elle doit être convaincue que le juge de première instance a commis une erreur de principe ou que la somme accordée est le résultat d’une erreur sérieuse dans l’évaluation du préjudice; Nance v. B.C. Electric Railway Co. [Renvois omis] [241] Bien qu’émanant de la common law , cette norme d’intervention, très sévère, s’applique également en droit civil .

Le professeur Gardner souligne : 241. […] Cette règle [de non-intervention] est a fortiori applicable en matière de préjudice corporel, où les difficultés d’évaluation et le recours à des probabilités laissent une zone discrétionnaire encore plus grande au premier juge : […] L’intervention de la Cour d’appel sera encore plus rare en ce qui concerne les pertes non pécuniaires, où la précision mathématique est par essence impossible : Le devoir de réserve imposé en matière d’interprétation des faits, de la crédibilité des témoins et des thèses des experts s’applique aussi à la détermination du quantum de la réclamation surtout lorsqu’il s’agit de l’estimation des pertes non pécuniaires résultant de douleurs, souffrances et inconvénients, opération qui relève plus d’un exercice philosophique que d’un calcul rigoureux. [Notre ajout] [242] L’intervention de la Cour est donc limitée aux erreurs de droit ou aux situations d’indemnisation manifestement incorrectes soit

lorsque le montant accordé est si excessivement bas ou si excessivement élevé qu’il doit constituer une estimation entièrement fausse des dommages. […] [247] Ainsi, devant la Cour, la seule question qui demeure est celle de savoir si, lors de son évaluation de la réparation juste et équitable, le juge de première instance a commis une erreur de principe ou si l’indemnisation accordée est manifestement incorrecte. [ 7 ] In the Court’s view, the appeal fails to satisfy the applicable standard of review. [ 8 ] In his judgment, the trial judge explained in detail the reasons for dismissing the claim for reimbursement of legal fees, despite the serious nature of the breach of conduct at issue.

He concluded that the legal services had been properly rendered for the benefit of the Appellant. He dismissed the allegations of improper services as being ill-founded while also pointing out that the Appellant had declared himself satisfied with such services in the course of the mandate. In his analysis, the trial judge relied on the principles set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Côté c.

Rancourt [3] and reiterated in Strother v. 3464920 Canada inc. [4] , while also distinguishing the facts and outcome of the latter case. [ 9 ] With respect to the reimbursement of the Appellant’s travelling expenses to Montreal, the trial judge denied the claim in the absence of a demonstration of a link between the Respondent’s fault and those expenses. [ 10 ] The trial judge found the $100,000 claim for moral damages to be excessive and almost abusive.

Yet, he awarded an amount of $10,000, after a careful review of the case law, despite the lack of evidence, based on his conviction that the Appellant had been profoundly disturbed upon discovering that the firm had failed to divulge its conflict of interest. [ 11 ] Insofar as the $300,000 claim for punitive damages is concerned, the trial judge found that there was no interference by the Respondent with any fundamental right and much less any intentional interference that could justify awarding damages of this nature and added that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate the criteria required under

article 1621 C.C.Q. [ 12 ] The appeal is an attempt to revisit the award of damages with which the Appellant disagrees, while failing to identify any error of principle or palpable and overriding error of fact that could justify the Court’s intervention. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 13 ] DISMISSES the appeal, with legal costs. FRANÇOIS DOYON, J.A. GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE, J.A. LUCIE FOURNIER, J.A.