2022 QCCA 691, 2022 QCCA 691

Sigounis c. Sigounis 2022 QCCA 691 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-030015-226 ( 500-11-052150-170 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: May 13, 2022 THE HONOURABLE GUY COURNOYER, J.A. APPELLANT COUNSEL Argyro Sigounis M tre DOMINIQUE Zaurrini Mtre Léo Di Battista ( Zaurrini avocats ) RESPONDENTS COUNSEL Dimitios (Jimmy) Sigounis Mtre Louis Brunet ( Gagnon, Brunet & Kilani ) Eleni Markridis (Sigounis) in her capacity as liquidator and particular and universal legatee of the Estate of late Nicolas Sigounis Mtre ROBERT PANCER ( Phillips Friedman Kotler ) IMPLEADED PARTIES COUNSEL

Amalia sigounis 114753 canada inc. 114754 canada inc. 136585 canada inc. chenoy delicatessen & steak house inc. chenoy delicatessen & steak house (1976) ldt. chenoy food network inc. n.k.d.s. consultants & investments inc. ABSENT AND Unrepresented DESCRIPTION: Motion to suspend provisional execution (Art. 355, 660 and 661 C.C.P .) . Clerk at the hearing : Mélanie Camiré Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING 9:32 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel.

Preliminary remarks. 9:44 Submissions by Mtre Zaurrini. 9:49 Submissions by Mtre Pancer. 9:56 Submissions by Mtre Brunet. 10:01 Reply by Mtre Zurrini. 10:06 Reply by Mtre Pancer. 10:07 BY THE JUDGE: Judgment will be rendered in the minutes of the hearing and sent to the parties. Conclusion of the hearing. Mélanie Camiré, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The parties have been involved in a « protracted judicial saga » in oppression proceedings which resulted in the recent appointment of a liquidator. [1] [ 2 ] Provisional execution of the judgment has been ordered notwithstanding appeal.

[ 3 ] I am seized with a motion to suspend the provisional execution of the judgment until final judgment in the appeal is rendered because it is alleged that without it the appeal would become illusory. [ 4 ] On May 30, 2022, the parties will be heard on the Respondents Application for Dismissal of the Petitioner’s Appeal. [ 5 ] On the motion before me, the difference between the parties’ position is slight. [ 6 ] The petitioner argues that a suspension of the provisional execution of the judgment until the Application for Dismissal of the Appeal is heard and suggests that the panel determines whether the suspension should remain in place if the appeal is allowed to continue. [ 7 ] The respondents suggest that I defer the motion to the panel who is going to hear the Application for Dismissal.

They agree that no steps should be undertaken as part of the liquidation process that would prejudice the petitioner’s interest. [ 8 ] I believe that the brief delay until a panel of the Court hears the Application for Dismissal of the Appeal and the advantage of certainty is paramount. [ 9 ] Given the relatively similar submissions of the parties, the solution adopted by my colleague Bich J.A. in Ostiguy c. Labrecque , 2016 QCCA 830 is well suited to the particular circumstances of this case.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 10 ] GRANTS , in part, the motion for suspension of the provisional execution; [ 11 ] ORDERS the suspension of the provisional execution of the judgment until the Court decides the Application for Dismissal of the Appeal; [ 12 ] DEFERS the question of whether the suspension should stay in place if the appeal proceeds to the panel who will hear the Respondents’ Application for Dismissal of the Appeal; [ 13 ] With costs to follow. GUY COURNOYER, J.A.