Nirint inc. c. Société de développement économique du Uashat et Maliotenam 2021 QCCA 1769 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-028968-204 ( 500-22-246310-182 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: November 25, 2021 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. STEPHEN W. HAMILTON, J.A. MICHEL BEAUPRÉ, J.A. APPELLANT COUNSEL nirint inc. Mtre claude benabou ( Benabou & Assoc. ) RESPONDENT COUNSEL société de développement économique du uashat et maliotenam Mtre CAROLINE BRIAND ( Langlois avocats ) On appeal from a judgment rendered on May 28, 2020 by the Honourable David L. Cameron of the Court of Québec , District of Montreal . NATURE OF THE APPEAL: Contract –

Interpretation of an agreement letter – Transportation services. Clerk at the hearing : Anne Dumont Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING

9:35 Commencement of the hearing and identification of counsel. Preliminary remarks by the Court. 9:36 Submissions by Mtre Benabou. 9:37 Discussion between the Court and Mtre Benabou. 9:48 Mtre Benabou resumes his submissions. 9:54 Question by the Court and response by Mtre Benabou. Mtre Benabou resumes his submissions. 9:57 Submissions by Mtre Briand. 10:00 Question by the Court and response by Mtre Briand. 10:02 Mtre Briand resumes her submissions. 10:22 Comment by the Court and response by Mtre Briand.

Reply by Mtre Benabou. 10:28 Recess of the hearing. 10:37 Resumption of the hearing. 10:38 BY THE COURT : Judgment – see page 3. 10:40 Conclusion of the hearing.

Anne Dumont, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Faced with evidence that was both contradictory and confused, the trial judge concluded that the appellant’s claim based on a letter of intent dated February 26, 2013 was either prescribed or ill-founded in the absence of any contractual fault by the respondent. [ 2 ] The appellant, which essentially contests the judge’s appreciation of the evidence and asks for the retrial of the issues dealt with in first instance, does not establish that the judge’s conclusions are vitiated by an error of law or by an overriding and palpable error of fact.

Thus, no such reviewable error having been demonstrated, the Court cannot intervene and has no choice but to dismiss the appeal. For these reasons, the court: [ 3 ] Dismisses the appeal, with legal costs. MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. STEPHEN W. HAMILTON, J.A. MICHEL BEAUPRÉ, J.A.