2012 QCCA 1886, 2012 QCCA 1886

CMP Advanced Mechanical Solutions Ltd. c. Snow 2012 QCCA 1886 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-022828-123 ( 500-17-056977-104 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: October 23, 2012 THE HONOURABLE ALLAN R. HILTON, J.A. PETITIONER ATTORNEY CMP ADVANCED MECHANICAL SOLUTIONS LTD Mtre Micheal Philip Aspler ASPLER & ASSOCIÉS RESPONDENT ATTORNEY ARTHUR SNOW Mtre Raphael Levy LEVY TSOTSIS MOTION TO SUSPEND THE EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT

Clerk: Annick Nguyen Court Room: RC.18 HEARING 11:48 Commencement of the hearing. Submission by Mtre Aspler. 11:53 Submission by Mtre Levy. 11:57 Reply by Mtre Aspler. 11:58 Suspension. 12:09 Resumption of the hearing. BY THE JUDGE. Judgment – See page 3. Annick Nguyen Clerk JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The appellant CMP Advanced Mechanical Solutions Ltd. solicits, pursuant to

article 522.1 C.C.P., the suspension of execution of the judgment of the Superior Court condemning it to pay $31,630.40 to the respondent in capital, plus applicable interest, the additional indemnity and costs. [ 2 ] A judgment of my college Dalphond J.A. dismissed the appellant's application for leave to appeal the trial judgment to this Court.

The basis of his judgment was that none of the appellant's proposed grounds of appeal were serious enough to justify leave being granted. [ 3 ] In order to obtain the suspension of an order such as the one under review, an applicant must show: first, an intention to file a leave application to the Supreme Court of Canada; second, a serious question to present to the Supreme Court of Canada; and third, an irreparable harm. [ 4 ] In my view, the appellant does not satisfy the criterion of a serious question. The judgment under review applied Quebec law to the circumstances of the case.

The fact that judgments in Ontario have reached a different result, applying the law applicable in Ontario to such cases, is not a valid basis to argue that the Quebec Superior Court judgment was wrongly decided. In fact, the appellant's motion before me does not suggest that it was wrongly decided. [ 5 ] The motion is therefore DISMISSED, with costs. ALLAN R. HILTON, J.A.