2019 QCCA 1205, 2019 QCCA 1205

Ferraro c. Développement Garabedian inc. 2019 QCCA 1205 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No : 500-09-028396-190 (540-17-013663-199) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: July 4 th , 2019 THE HONOURABLE MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. PETITIONER COUNSEL LEONARDO FERRARO Mtre PIETRO IANNUZZI ANTHONY GATTUSO (Intern) (Mitchell Gattuso, S.E.N.C.) RESPONDENT COUNSEL DÉVELOPPEMENT GARABEDIAN INC. Mtre Antoine Hammam (Chamoun Légal inc) DESCRIPTION: Application of the Appellant to suspend the execution pending the appeal (s. 30, 511, 514 C.C.P. ) . Clerk: Stephane Robinson Courtroom: RC-18

HEARING 9:34 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. Recess of the hearing. 10:25 Resumption of the hearing. 10:25 Submissions by Mtre Iannuzzi. 10:27 The Judge asks Mtre Iannuzzi if the provisional injunction expiring the 27 th of June 2019 as stated in the first instance judgment, has been renewed. Mtre Iannuzzi informs the Judge that the provisional injunction has been renewed.

Intervention by Mtre Hammam, informing the judge the provisional injunction has been renewed until August 23 rd by consent of the parties . 10:28 The judge informs Mtre Iannuzzi that he has not sought leave to appeal, and has yet to file a motion for leave to appeal. Exchanges between the Judge and Mtre Iannuzzi. 10:46 Submissions by Mtre Hammam. 11:05 Rebuttal by Mtre Iannuzzi. 11:08 BY THE JUDGE : The hearing is continued to this afternoon, at 3:00 pm.

Counsel is exempted from attending the hearing. 11:08 Recess of the hearing. 15:00 Resumption of the hearing. 15:00 BY THE JUDGE : Judgment – see page 3. 15:03 Conclusion of the hearing. Clerk - Stephane Robinson JUDGMENT [ 1 ] I have for adjudication an application dated June 19, 2019 to suspend execution pending appeal.

The object of the suspension is the judgment of the Superior Court, District of Laval (the Honourable Lukasz Granosik) dated June 18, 2019. [ 2 ] The judge issued an interlocutory injunction on a provisional basis to remain in force until June 27, 2019, ordering Applicant to transfer administration of a Facebook page to Respondent. Applicant was using the page to market certain real estate on behalf of Respondent when the latter terminated the relationship with a view to appointing others to market the real estate.

While not contesting the right to the handover of the administration of the Facebook page as such, Applicant sought a 90-day delay so as to safeguard his alleged commercial secrets from a successor marketing agency which by definition would be a competitor. I am informed by counsel that the order of injunction has been extended by consent to August 23, 2019. Also, Respondent is seeking a finding of contempt scheduled for July 16, 2019. [ 3 ] The application to suspend must be dismissed. The judgment by definition is not final so that

article 31 C.C.P. requires that leave be obtained. No such leave has been obtained nor even sought. Though alerted to this by the Court prior to the hearing, Applicant has not sought leave to appeal arguing that the effect of the order is like that of a final judgment albeit interim on its face. [ 4 ] The judgment, even if overly broad in its reach as Applicant contends, is nevertheless not a final judgment. Accordingly, leave is required under

article 31 C.C.P. [ 5 ] Moreover, even if leave was sought, the judgment is motivated in detail, the judge having considered the appropriate principles and the position of the Applicant. Leave to appeal orders of provisional injunction is only granted in exceptional cases. [1] This does not appear to be one of those cases. [ 6 ] FOR ALL THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 7 ] DISMISSES the application to suspend execution pending appeal, with legal costs.

MARK sCHRAGER , J.A.