2021 QCCA 1270, 2021 QCCA 1270

Mercedes-Benz Financial Services Canada Corporation c. Seweha 2021 QCCA 1270 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-029656-212 ( 500-22-268402-214 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: August 19, 2021 THE HONOURABLE PATRICK HEALY, J.A.

APPLICANT COUNSEL mercedes-benz financial services canada corporation Mtre marc savoie Mtre Yixin LIU ( Savoie Joubert ) By videoconference RESPONDENT COUNSEL madonna seweha Mtre fady girgis ( Devine Schachter Polak ) By videoconference DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment rendered in the course of the proceeding on 13 august 2021 by the Honourable Luc Huppé of the Court of Québec , District of Montréal (Art. 31 and 357 C.C.P. ). Motion for stay of execution of judgment (Art. 660 al. 2 C.C.P. ) .

Clerk at the hearing : Mélanie Camiré Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING 12:34 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. Preliminary comments. 12:38 Submissions by Mtre Girgis.

12:52 Submissions by Mtre Savoie. BY THE JUDGE: Judgment will be rendered on minutes and transmitted to the parties as soon as it is available. Conclusion of the hearing.

Mélanie Camiré, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The petitioner has presented two motions: a motion for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Quebec, District of Montreal, 13 August 2021, Honourable Luc Huppé, J.C.Q. and a motion for the suspension of the execution of an order to suspend the execution of a judgment in the Court of Quebec (“the second judgment”) that quashes a previous judgment (“the first judgment”) of the same court for the issuance of an order for seizure before judgment. [1] *** [ 2 ] The first order was granted because the judge was satisfied that the petitioner’s (plaintiff’

s) interests were in jeopardy before judgment by the apparent conduct of the respondent (defendant) on the present motion. These are the factors he noted in his reasons: Considérant la teneur de la déclaration sous serment de Véronique Taupier, datée du 23 juillet 2021; Considérant que le Tribunal est d’avis et conclut qu’il est à craindre que, sans la saisie avant jugement, la créance de Mercedes-Benz Financial Services Canada Corporation ne soit mise en péril au sens de l’article 518 C.p.c.

Considérant les allégations de la demande introductive d’instance; Considérant qu’aucun paiement n’a été fait depuis l’achat le 10 mai 2021; Considérant qu’aucun paiement n’a pu être fait à partir des coordonnées bancaires fournies par la défenderesse; Considérant que les coordonnées, téléphone et courriel, laissées par la défenderesse ne sont plus valides; Considérant que la défenderesse a quitté son emploi; Considérant que la cote de crédit de la défenderesse était à 700 au moment de l’achat du véhicule; Considérant que la défenderesse a obtenu plusieurs autorisations de crédit en même temps au mois de mai 2021; Considérant que la cote de crédit de la défenderesse est ensuite descendue à 456; Considérant que la défenderesse ne peut être retracée à l’adresse de domicile qu’elle a donnée et que le véhicule ne peut être retracé; Considérant que la demanderesse craint que la défenderesse ait mis en place une « bust out strategy » et qu’elle se départe du véhicule; [Reproduction intégrale] [ 3 ] These considerations are based upon the affidavit supporting the application for an order to seize judgment. [ 4 ] An order to seize before judgment is exceptional but the authority to grant it nevertheless implies a measure of discretion in the appreciation of the objective sufficiency of the plaintiff’s alleged risk and, for this reason, commands a conspicuous measure of deference.

The second order was granted following reasons that effectively entered upon the merits of the action to contradict the previous judgment of a colleague. This is inconsistent with the principle of judicial comity that is implicit in the principle of deference.

Moreover, the second judgment fails to demonstrate any apparent weakness in the objective sufficiency of the allegations that supported the issuance of the order in the first. [ 5 ] In these circumstances, although an order to suspend the execution of judgment is an exception to the general rule, the criteria that must be satisfied for such an order are amply met in this file. [2] It is entirely appropriate to issue such an order to suspend execution of the second judgment at least until the petitioner’s motion for leave to appeal against that judgment is resolved. [ 6 ] The motion for leave to appeal concerns the application of articles 30(2), paragraph (7) and 522 C.C.P .

The petitioner submits that the judge in the second judgment exceeded the bounds permitted under

article 522 C.C.P. by taking into account the merits of the

principal action and not only the sufficiency of the allegations advanced in the affidavit for the issue of an order to seize before judgment [3] . It is well settled that the sufficiency of the affidavit (or affidavits) is tested on the assumption that that the allegations therein are true. [ 7 ] In my view leave should be granted on this basis because, if the judge did exceed the criteria of

article 522 C.C.P ., it is a matter that should be submitted to the Court within the terms of article 30(3) C.C.P. for review and possible correction.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 8 ] GRANTS the application for leave to appeal; [ 9 ] GRANTS leave to appeal; [ 10 ] GRANTS the present motion to suspend execution of the “the second judgment”; [ 11 ] SUSPENDS the execution of “the second judgment”; [ 12 ] DECLARES “the first judgment” to have full force and effect; [ 13 ] ORDERS the respondent to surrender possession of the vehicle (1 2021 Mercedes Benz CLA250 4MATIC, serial number W1K5J4HB5MN176542), not later than noon on 27 August 2021 , to the judicial guardian designated by the bailiff who executed the seizure before judgment; [ 14 ] PLACES the case on the roll of 12 November 2021 in room Antonio-Lamer at 9:30 am , for a hearing of 60 minutes in duration, with 30 minutes allocated to each party; [ 15 ] ORDERS the appellant, after having notified a copy upon the respondent, to file in the Office of the Court, no later than 3 September 2021 , five copies of a written argument not exceeding 12 pages.

All documents necessary for the adjudication of the appeal (judgment under appeal, pleadings, excerpts from depositions, etc.) shall be attached; [ 16 ] ORDERS the respondent, after having notified a copy upon the appellant, to file in the Office of the Court, no later than 24 September 2021 , five copies of a written argument not exceeding 12 pages and of his supplementary documents; [ 17 ] DIRECTS the parties’ attention to

article 376 C.C.P. and

section 55 of the Civil Practice Regulation, which read as follows: 376. The appeal lapses if the appellant does not file a brief or a memorandum within the time limit for filing. The appellate clerk issues a certificate of lapse of appeal, unless an appellate judge is seized of an application for an extension. A respondent or any other party that does not make a timely filing of its brief or memorandum is precluded from filing and cannot be heard at the hearing unless so authorized by the Court of Appeal. 55. Format. The memorandum shall include a title page, a table of contents and be paginated consecutively.

The provisions relating to briefs (including the final requirements) apply to memoranda with the necessary adaptations. [ 18 ] REMINDS the parties about Practice Direction G-3 (latest revision: 20 April 2021) which strongly encourages them to attach a technological version of their brief or memorandum and their book of authorities to each hard copy of those documents.

The technological version must be saved on a USB key and must be in PDF format that allows keyword searches and includes hyperlinks from the table of contents to the brief, memorandum or book of authorities and, where applicable, from the argument to the schedules. If the Word version of their argument is available, parties are also invited to put that version on the USB key. [ 19 ] THE WHOLE with costs of justice to follow. PATRICK HEALY, J.A.