2011 QCCA 1306, 2011 QCCA 1306

Bizware Software Solutions, u.l.c. c. Gabriel Amar & Associés inc. 2011 QCCA 1306 COUR D'APPEL CANADA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC GREFFE DE MONTRÉAL N o : 500-09-021504-113 (500-17-056707-105) PROCÈS-VERBAL D'AUDIENCE DATE: 7 JUILLET 2011 CORAM: LES HONORABLES JACQUES CHAMBERLAND, J.C.A. JACQUES A. LÉGER , J.C.A. NICHOLAS KASIRER, J.C.A. APPELANT(ES) AVOCAT(

S) BIZWARE SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS ULC BIZWARE SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS INC. DATAMAX GROUP INC. Me François Mainguy LANGLOIS, KRONSTRÖM, DESJARDINS LLP INTIMÉ(ES) AVOCAT(

S) GABRIEL AMAR & ASSOCIÉS INC. Me Felipe Morales AUDET F.G. & ASSOCIÉS

En appel d'un jugement rendu le 15 février 2011 par l'honorable Francine Nantel de la Cour supérieure, district de Montréal. Requête amendée de l'intimée pour preuve nouvelle. NATURE DE L'APPEL : Demande de précisions Greffier: Marcelle Desmarais Salle: PIERRE-BASILE-MIGNAULT AUDITION 16 h 36 Argumentation par Me François Manguy. 16 h 51 Argumentation par Me Felipe Morales. 17 h 07 Réplique par Me François Manguy. 17 h 11 Fin de l'argumentation de part et d'autre. 17 h 11 Suspension de la séance. 17 h 35 Reprise de la séance. PAR LA COUR: Arrêt – voir page 3. Marcelle Desmarais Greffière d'audience PAR LA COUR ARRÊT

ARRÊT SUR LA REQUÊTE POUR PREUVE NOUVELLE [ 1 ] La requête pour preuve nouvelle ne satisfait pas aux conditions établies par la jurisprudence de cette Cour. L'échange de lettres entre les avocats concernant le remboursement des frais de voyage avancés à M. Pennington n'est pas pertinente à la question que la Cour a à trancher en appel. Il en va de même des procédures déposées au Texas en mars 2011.

Quant à la transcription du message laissé dans la boîte vocale de l'avocat le 31 janvier 2011 en après-midi, cette preuve ne constitue pas une preuve nouvelle. [ 2 ] POUR CES MOTIFS : la requête pour preuve nouvelle est rejetée, frais à suivre le sort du pourvoi. ARRÊT SUR LE POURVOI [1] On January 5, 2011, Mayer J. ordered that the examination of Mr.

Lee Pennington would occur on or before February 2, 2011, failing which Appellants' Defence and Cross-demand would be dismissed and the Appellants foreclosed from pleading. [2] On January 11, 2011, Appellants' attorney confirmed the purchase of a plane ticket by Mr. Pennington for February 1, 2011. [ 3 ] Late in the afternoon on the eve of his departure, Mr.

Pennington's flight was cancelled due to a major winter storm in Texas. [ 4 ] On February 15, 2011, Nantel J. dismissed Appellants' Motion for Particulars and Defence and Cross-Demand, declared the Appellants to be foreclosed from pleading and ordered the inscription of an ex parte judgment. [ 5 ] On April 1, 2011, Dufresne J.A. granted leave to appeal of that decision. [ 6 ] The Court is of the view that the judgment a quo ought to be reversed. [ 7 ] Dismissal is the ultimate procedural sanction. It should be used only with the greatest prudence and reserved for clear cases of abuse. [ 8 ]

Article 151.3 C.C.P . affords the trial judge the discretion to "relieve the defaulting party from default if required in the interest of justice". [ 9 ] In the case at bar, there was evidence before the judge of first instance that Mr. Pennington's flight from Austin, Texas to Montreal had been cancelled due to a major winter storm in Texas. [ 10 ] In the circumstances in which the parties had agreed that Mr.

Pennington would be examined on the last day of the timetable identified by Mayer J., the cancellation of the flight constituted a force majeure. [ 11 ] The effects of the inscription by default in this case are, as our colleague Dufresne J.A. noted in his judgment, drastic. Respondent's second amended Motion to Institute Proceedings claimed over $300,000 from the Appellants and Appellants' cross-demand amounted to over $30,000. [ 12 ] The severity of the sanction imposed by the judge of first instance is in the circumstances disproportionate to the conduct of Mr.

Pennington. [ 13 ] The principles of natural justice, as well as

article 2 C.C.P ., argue against a premature and to the proceedings at this point. [ 14 ] On the other hand, the Court is of the view that there are no valid grounds of appeal justifying the reversal of the trial judge's dismissal of Appellants' Motion for Particulars. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS the appeal in part; [ 16 ] REVERSES the judgment a quo in part; [ 17 ] STRIKES the Inscription for ex parte judgment. [ 18 ] Each party paying its own costs. JACQUES CHAMBERLAND, J.C.A. JACQUES A. LÉGER, J.C.A.

NICHOLAS KASIRER, J.C.A.