2019 QCCA 1265, 2019 QCCA 1265

Bank of Nova Scotia c. 6775 Décarie inc. 2019 QCCA 1265 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-028357-192 (500-17-103197-185) DATE: June 13, 2019 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE STEPHEN W. HAMILTON, J.A. THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA PETITIONER – Plaintiff v. 6775 DÉCARIE INC. RESPONDENT- Defendant and TAV COLLEGE TAV EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS INC.

PERRY MAZZANTI VIGLIONE, MAZZNATI SPANO, DECOBELLIS, HUOT & GABRIELLI NOTARIES IMPLAEDED PARTY – Impleaded party JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court, District of Montreal (the Honourable Marc- André Blanchard) dated May 24, 2019, which granted the Respondent’s Application to Quash a Seizure before Judgment based on his finding of the insufficiency of the allegations in the sworn statements filed in support of the Petitioner’s seizure application. [ 2 ] Leave to appeal from a judgment quashing a seizure before judgment will be granted if the matter at issue is one that should be submitted to the Court, for example, because it involves a question of principle, a new issue or an issue of law that has given rise to conflicting judicial decisions (article 30 C.C.P .). [ 3 ] The Petitioner alleges that the Respondent was selling its sole asset in Quebec.

It is well established that such an allegation is insufficient to justify a seizure before judgment of the asset. [1] However, the Petitioner also alleges that the proceeds of the sale will be repatriated to the Respondent’s shareholders, who are outside Canada, leaving the Respondent an empty shell. I am of the view that the sufficiency of those allegations raises a question of principle which deserves to be submitted to the Court.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 4 ] GRANTS the Petitioner’s application for leave to appeal; [ 5 ] AUTHORIZES the Petitioner to appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court, District of Montreal (the Honourable Marc- André Blanchard) dated May 24, 2019; [ 6 ] ORDERS that the Petitioner, after notifying the Respondent, file with the Office of the Court, no later than July 3, 2019 , fives copies of the documents mentioned at

article 53 R.C.A.Q.C.M. and, if applicable, an argument of no more than 15 pages ; [ 7 ] ORDERS that the Respondent, after notifying the Petitioner, file with the Office of the Court, no later than July 24, 2019, fives copies of the documents mentioned at

article 53 R.C.A.Q.C.M. and, if applicable, an argument of no more than 15 pages ; [ 8 ] REFERS the appeal to the Master of the Rolls to fix the hearing, for a duration of 60 minutes (30 minutes for the Petitioner; 30 minutes for the Respondent); [ 9 ] With judicial costs to follow. STEPHEN W. HAMILTON, J.A. Mtre David Stolow Mtre Éva Richard

KUGLER, KANDESTIN For Appellant Mtre Jean-Marc Clément CLÉMENT ET ASSOCIÉS For Respondent Date of hearing: June 7, 2019