2021 QCCA 1758, 2021 QCCA 1758

Unofficial English Translation of the Judgment of the Court Centre de santé dentaire Gendron Delisle inc. c. La Personnelle, assurances générales inc. 2021 QCCA 1758 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-029691-219 ( 500-06-001057-203 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: November 26, 2021 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. STEPHEN W. HAMILTON, J.A. MICHEL BEAUPRÉ, J.A. APPELLANT COUNSEL Centre de santé dentaire gendron delisle inc. Mtre CHRISTINE NASRAOUI ( Merchant Law Group ) Absent RESPONDENTS COUNSEL THE PERSONAL GENERAL INSURANCE INC.

DESJARDINS GENERAL INSURANCE GROUP INC . Mtre VALÉRIE LEMAIRE Mtre Vincent de l’Étoile ( Langlois Lawyers ) Absent LA CAPITALE GENERAL INSURANCE INC. Mtre DOMINIQUE NOEL ( Norton Rose Fulbright Canada ) Mtre VINCENT ROCHETTE ( Norton Rose Fulbright Canada ) Absent

ECONOMICAL, COMPAGNIE MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE Mtre CÉLINE LEGENDRE Mtre JULIEN HYNES-GAGNÉ ( Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt ) Absent ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA Mtre LOUIS-PHILIPPE CONSTANT Mtre GENEVIÈVE BOISVERT ( Clyde & Co Canada ) Absent

PROMUTUEL BAGOT, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL BOIS-FRANCS, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL BORÉALE, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL CENTRE-SUD, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL CHAUDIÈRE- APPALACHES, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL DE L’ESTUAIRE, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL DEUX-MONTAGNES, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL DU LAC AU FLEUVE, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL LANAUDIÈRE, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL MONTMAGNY-L’ISLET, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL PORTNEUF- CHAMPLAIN, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL RIVE-SUD, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL OUTAOUAIS VALLEY, MUTUAL GENERAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATION PROMUTUEL VALLÉE DU ST- LAURENT, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL VAUDREUIL- SOULANGES, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL VERCHÈRES-LES FORGES, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE Mtre MARC-ANDRÉ MCCANN Mtre STÉPHANE PITRE ( Borden Ladner Gervais ) On appeal from a judgment rendered on August 18, 2021, by the Honourable Thomas M.

Davis of the Superior Court, District of Montreal.

DESCRIPTION: Respondents’ application to dismiss the appeal (article 365 C.C.P.) Respondent Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada’s application to dismiss the appeal (article 365 C.C.P.) Clerk at the hearing: Anne Dumont Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 9:33 a.m. Commencement of the hearing. Resumption of the hearing of November 22, 2021. The parties were excused from appearing in Court. BY THE COURT: Judgment – see page 5. End of the hearing.

Anne Dumont, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The appellant appeals as of right from a judgment of the Superior Court denying authorization of the class action it wants to bring against the respondents [1] (art. 578 C.C.P.). The respondents present two applications to dismiss the appeal (art. 365 C.C.P.). The first was filed by the respondents collectively, including Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada, and raises arguments common to all the respondents.

The second application was filed by the respondent Royal & Sun Alliance and raises an argument specific to Royal & Sun Alliance (namely, the presence of a mandatory arbitration clause, a subject that the trial judgment expressly determined in the respondent’s favour). [ 2 ] Shortly before the hearing on these applications, the appellant informed the Court registry that it intended to discontinue, without costs, its appeal against Royal & Sun Alliance, with the agreement of counsel for Royal & Sun Alliance. The reason for this discontinuance stems from the recent judgment by the Court in Restaurant Bâton Rouge c.

Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company , [2] which gave effect to an arbitration clause in an insurance policy, in the context of a class action, which deprived the appeal of any reasonable chance of success. Consequently, during the hearing, the appellant presented an application seeking authorization to discontinue, in accordance with the teaching of the Court in Robillard c.

Arsenault [3] (due to the need to protect the putative class members, discontinuance from an appeal of a judgment denying authorization of a class action requires the approval of the Court) [4] . [ 3 ] The Court will deal first with the discontinuance and then with the application of the other respondents to dismiss the appeal of the judge’s refusal to authorize a class action against them . [ 4 ] Appeal against Royal & Sun Alliance and discontinuance . Restaurant Bâton Rouge c.

Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company [5] indeed leads to the conclusion that the appellant’s appeal against the respondent Royal & Sun Alliance is destined to fail. Were it not for the discontinuance, it would have been summarily dismissed under art. 365 C.C.P. [ 5 ] Consequently, the discontinuance sought by the appellant causes no harm to the class members. It will therefore be authorized, without any particular formality and without costs, and will be acknowledged by the Court.

Given this discontinuance, Royal & Sun Alliance’s application to dismiss is now moot, as is, solely regarding it, the other respondents’ application to dismiss, to which it was joined. * * [ 6 ] The other respondents’ application to dismiss the appeal. Regarding the other respondents named in the appeal, it has, in the

Court’s view, no reasonable chance of success. [ 7 ] The trial judge (who, exceptionally, could rule on the issue, which concerns standard insurance policies and unambiguous clauses) [6] clearly explained why the insurance policies in question do not cover the risk the appellant raises or the loss of which it complains. The grounds argued by the appellant in its notice of appeal do not identify any potential error in that judgment that would justify allowing the appeal to proceed. The particularly deficient nature of the notice of appeal must be noted here.

It contains only generic, and therefore insufficient, assertions. The Court understands from it that the appellant disagrees with the trial judgment, but that on its own is not a tenable ground.

Furthermore, during the hearing on the application to dismiss, counsel for the appellant argued additional grounds that are impossible to related back to the notice of appeal, grounds that, furthermore, contradict in several respects the theory of the case presented to the trial judge. [ 8 ] Last, the appeal does not raise any coherent or legally defensible argument (to use the terms employed by LeBel J. in Centre Sportif Laprairie inc. c. Place La Citière (1981) inc. (In Re) ) [7] and, as a result, has no reasonable chance of success within the meaning of the first paragraph of art. 365 C.C.P .

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 9 ] AUTHORIZES the appellant to discontinue the appeal against the respondent Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada, and ACKNOWLEDGES this discontinuance, the whole without legal costs; [ 10 ] DECLARES , accordingly, the respondent Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada’s application to dismiss moot, as is, with respect to Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada only, the application to dismiss collectively presented by Groupe Promutuel Fédération de sociétés mutuelles d’assurance générale et al. [ 11 ] With respect to the other respondents named in the appeal, GRANTS the application to dismiss the appeal and DISMISSES the appeal, the whole with legal costs.

MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. STEPHEN W. HAMILTON, J.A. MICHEL BEAUPRÉ, J.A.