2019 QCCA 1349, 2019 QCCA 1349

Anina c. Atlas Electronic Systems Inc. 2019 QCCA 1349 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-028446-193 ( 500-17-086966-150 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: August 1, 2019 THE HONOURABLE GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE, J.A. APPLICANTS COUNSEL Nadezda Anina Andrey Anin les Services comptables NAdezhda inc. Mtre Andrey Mutchnik ( BMLex avocats Inc. ) RESPONDENT COUNSEL ATLAS ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS INC.

Mtre Marie-Claude Lassiseraye Mathieu ( Borden Ladner Gervais s.e.n.c.r.l., s.r.l. ) DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment rendered in the course of the proceeding on June 13, 2019 by the Honourable Chantal Masse of the Superior Court, District of Montreal (art.31 C.C.P. ) . Clerk at the hearing : Stephane Robinson Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING

9:32 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. Recess. 10:14 Resumption of the hearing. 10:15 Commentary by the Judge. 10:16 Submissions by Mtre Mutchnik. 10:41 Submissions by Mtre Lassiseraye Mathieu. 10:58 Reply by Mtre Mutchnik. 11:06 Intervention by Me Lassiseraye Mathieu. 11:07 BY THE JUDGE : Judgment will be rendered in the course of the day and will be inserted in the minutes of the hearing – see page 3. 11:07 Conclusion of the hearing.

Stephane Robinson, Clerk at the hearing BY THE JUDGE JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Petitioners are seeking leave to appeal of a judgment rendered by the Superior Court, district of Montreal (the honourable Chantal Masse), which dismissed their Motion to dismiss the Respondent’s modified judicial application to institute proceedings in damages . [ 2 ] A judgment of this nature rendered in the course of a proceeding does not bind the judge that will eventually hear the matter on the merits.

As a result, it cannot qualify as a judgment that causes irremediable injury to a party in order to justify granting the required leave to appeal under

article 31 C.P.P. , other than in exceptional circumstances, where the grounds of dismissal relate to jurisdiction, res judicata or litis pendens , or where the proposed appeal otherwise raises a novel issue or one of great importance that must be decided immediately. [1] [ 3 ] This is not the case here. [ 4 ] The Motion to dismiss was based on a prescription and on the lack of merits of the claim. [ 5 ] In the similar case of St-Gelais c.

Barrière [2] , this Court underlined that a judgment dismissing a motion to dismiss based on prescription and the lack of merits could not qualify as one causing irremediable injury to the party, even where the Petitioner may be forced to undergo a lengthy and costly trial as a result: […] [3] L'appelant soutient que le jugement de première instance va forcer les parties à subir un long procès alors qu'il est très clair selon lui que la juge a erré en refusant de déclarer que le recours de l'intimé était prescrit et en refusant de conclure qu'il avait été entièrement payé des sommes qui lui sont dues.

Ce serait là son préjudice irrémédiable au sens du second alinéa de l'article 31 n.C.p.c. [4] Même si ultimement la Cour supérieure devait donner raison à l'appelant sur le fond du litige et conclure que le recours de l'intimé est abusif et voué à l'échec, elle pourra toujours se prévaloir de l'article 54 n.C.p.c. et condamner l'intimé à payer à l'appelant, outre les frais de justice, des dommages-intérêts en réparation du préjudice subi par l'appelant et occasionné par la tenue d'un procès inutile. [5] Il n'y a donc rien d' irrémédiable au sens de l'article 31, alinéa 2, n.C.p.c. [ 6 ] These principles apply to the case at hand.

The Petitioners did not demonstrate that they will suffer irremediable injury as a result of the dismissal of their Motion to dismiss, so as to justify the required leave to appeal. FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED : [ 7 ] DISMISSES the Application for leave to appeal, with legal costs.

GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE, J.A.