2014 QCCA 1259, 2014 QCCA 1259

Takefman c. Golden Hope Mines Ltd. 2014 QCCA 1259 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-024451-148 (500-11-044941-132) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: June 12, 2014 THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. PETITIONER COUNSEL EARL TAKEFMAN Personally RESPONDENTS COUNSEL GOLDEN HOPE MINES LIMITED ROBERT STOCKS ROY MILLINGTON MICHAEL ZUROWSKI ARVIND JAIN WILLIAM C. NEEDHAM FRANK CANDIDO Me François Demers SPIEGEL, SOHMER, INC. Me Éric Bédard WOODS S.E.N.C.R.L.

AMENDED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT RENDERED ON MAY 22, 2014 BY THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE CHANTAL CORRIVEAU, OF THE SUPERIOR COURT, DISTRICT OF MONTREAL, AND REQUEST FOR CASE MANAGEMENT Clerk: Linda Côté Courtroom: RC.18 HEARING . . . Linda Côté Clerk JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The petitioner is suing the respondents for damages. In October 2013, pursuant to art. 398 C.C.P. , he examined, after plea, the respondent Candido (who is the president of the respondent Golden Hope Mines Limited (“GHM”)). Objections were raised during the examination and were later submitted to Mr. Justice Louis J.

Gouin, of the Superior Court. Gouin J. rendered judgment on December 6, 2013, dismissing most of the objections, upon the following conditions: Quant au groupe d'objections no 1 de la Liste, le Tribunal:

ORDONNE au demandeur de s'abstenir de divulguer ou d'utiliser, directement ou indirectement, les documents et informations obtenusen réponde à toute question ou demande relative ou découlant du premier groupe d'objections de la liste, datée du 6 novembre 2013, etce, à toute autre fin que la production, “sous scellé”, de ces documents et informations, le tout sous réserve du droit du demandeur deformuler ne demande à la Cour en modification de cette ordonnance. [...] Quant au groupe d'objections no 2 de la Liste, dans la mesure et vu la limite du “Golden Hope Mines Limited Trading and BlackoutPolicy” document produit comme pièce P-19 LE TRIBUNAL : PERMET que les questions du groupe d'objections no 2 soient demandées, vu, selon le Tribunal, qu'elles cadrent dans la dite “policy”, lejuge du fond devant en temps et lieu, décider de leur pertinence; Il est entendu que l'ordonnance de confidentialité rendue dans le cadre du groupe d'objections no 1 de la Liste s'applique aussi auxréponses à être données aux questions du groupe d'objections no 2 de la Liste. […] [Emphasis added.] [2] Following this judgment, Mr.

Candido produced many documents, including the brokerage account trading

summary of his saleof 150,000 shares of GHM in February 2013, and the raw drilling data received by GHM around that time (both of which were targetedby objections no. 2). The petitioner then filed a “motion to withdraw certain confidentiality requirements previously imposed by thisCourt” (amended later), requesting that the confidentiality order of Gouin, J. be lifted with regards to these documents (exhibits P-3 andP-4).

In support of his motion, the petitioner argued that the substance of the information contained in these exhibits is already known tothe public and cannot be considered to be private anymore: the sale of Mr. Candido's shares, being an insider transaction, was reported tothe regulatory authorities and the information is accessible to all; the raw drilling results were the object of press releases by GHM inMarch 2013. Thus, there is no reason for maintaining the confidentiality order. [3] The following paragraphs of the amended motion addressed to the Superior Court are worth noting: 4.

Plaintiff requests to withdraw the confidentiality restriction in order to: (

a) allow Plaintiff to ask for an investigation of Mr. Candido's trading activity by the Ontario Securities Commission and the AttorneyGeneral regarding the evidence provided by Defendants of possible illegal insider trading by Mr. Candido in violation of Sections 76 and127 of the Ontario Securities Act and Sections 382.1 of the Criminal Code; and (

b) allow Plaintiff to advise the Company's shareholders/owners of the timing of the drill result e-mails from SGS in relation to Mr.Candido's trades such that they can draw their own conclusions in relation to press releases previously provided to theshareholders/owners of the Company that Mr. Candido had done nothing wrong according toe an ‘expensive and exhaustiveinvestigation’ carried out by the Board that found no wrongdoing by Mr. Candido. [4] The petitioner also offered to redact certain elements of both exhibits, i.e. Mr.

Candido's address, account number and brokeragestatement, as well as the specific raw data drill results (the date on which these results were communicated to GHM being in his view theonly essential information). [5] The petitioner's amended motion was dismissed by Madam Justice Chantal Corriveau on May 22, 2014, for the followingreasons: - Considérant les objectifs énoncés aux paragraphes 4a) et 4b) de la requête du demandeur intitulée : « (Under seal) Plaintiff's amendedmotion to withdraw certain confidentiality requirements previously imposed by this Court » datée du 23 avril 2014; - Considérant les conclusions du recours tels qu'énoncées dans la requête ré-ré-ré-réamendée datée du 17 février 2014; - Considérant que le demandeur a entrepris un recours en dommages réclamant 75 000 $ de dommages personnels et 25 000 $ dedommages punitifs avec une conclusion de la nature d'une injonction permanente par laquelle il exige que des communiqués de pressesoient diffusés afin de rétablir les faits selon le point de vue du demandeur; - Considérant les principes établis dans l'arrêt Lac Amiante c. 2858-0702 Québec inc., 2001 SCC 51 , [2001] 2 RCS 743; Le Tribunal refuse la demande de lever l'ordonnance de confidentialité en ce qui a trait aux pièces R-1 et R-2 dont le demandeur a obtenucommunication dans le cadre d'engagements tenus lors d'interrogatoires au préalable.

L'information transmise par les intimés dans le cadre d'interrogatoires au préalable demeure privilégiée jusqu'à ce qu'elle soit produite audossier de la Cour par témoin lors de l'audience au mérite à être tenue ou par avis non contesté conformément aux règles du Code deprocédure civile. En conséquence des objectifs énoncés par le demandeur dans sa requête, le Tribunal confirme que la règle de la non-utilisation desinformations obtenues grâce aux interrogatoires au préalable s'applique.

Le demandeur doit se limiter à utiliser cette information aux finsprécises de préparer la mise en état du dossier en vue de l'audition au mérite. Pour plus de clarté, le demandeur peut montrer à un expert l'information ainsi recueillie aux fins de préparer un rapport d'expertise à êtredéposé au dossier de la Cour.

Le demandeur ne peut se servir de l'information ainsi recueillie pour les diffuser à des tiers incluant les coactionnaires. Le présent jugement vise les pièces R-1 et R-2, mais aussi les documents les intégrant en tout ou en

partie dans d'autres pièces ainsi que l'ensemble des informations recueillies lors d'interrogatoires au préalable. À ce stade du dossier, bien que le débat soit public, les documents transmis peuvent être utilisés dans le cadre du litige qui implique les parties et non pour mener des batailles contre les intimés dans d'autres forums.

POUR CES MOTIFS, LE TRIBUNAL : REJETTE la requête; LE TOUT frais à suivre. * * [ 6 ] Pursuant to art. 29 and 511 C.C.P. , the petitioner seeks to appeal this judgment, for reasons akin to those submitted to Corriveau J.: the substance of the information contained in exhibits P-3 and P-4 is already in the public domain and the parts that are not will be redacted and will continue to be protected. According to the petitioner, Corriveau, J. misinterpreted and misapplied the principles set out in Lac d'Amiante du Québec ltée v. 2858-0702 Québec inc. [1] and Sierra Club of Canada v.

Canada (Minister of Finance) [2] , amongst others. [ 7 ] The respondents, for their part, argue that Corriveau J.'s judgment is not appealable according to art. 29 C.C.P. Were it appealable, art. 511 would not justify leave to be granted, as the pursuit of justice would be ill-served by the public dissemination of redacted and incomplete pieces of information of a very private nature. * * [ 8 ] Firstly, the motion must be dismissed for lack of a right to appeal.

Considering the temporary character of the confidentiality restrictions maintained by Corriveau J., the petitioner will indeed suffer no irreparable harm in the conduct of his action against the respondents, within the meaning of the case law [3] .

He has full access to the documents at issue, he can use them freely for the purposes of his action, he has already handed them to his expert (who, according to the respondents, has submitted two reports on the matter); he will be able to file them at trial, etc. [ 9 ] In the absence of such irreparable harm to the suit, one must conclude, on the basis of the majority reasons in Elitis Pharma Inc. v.

RX Job inc. , that Corriveau J.'s judgment is not appealable, since it does not fall within one of the categories listed in art. 29 C.C.P. : it does not decide the issues on the merits, it does not order the doing of anything which cannot be remedied by the final judgment, it does not unnecessarily delay the trial of the suit, it is not covered by the second paragraph of art. 29. [ 10 ] It is also to be noted that no irreparable harm is or will be caused to the petitioner in the pursuit of his other objectives: he already has all the information that he apparently needs in order to ask for an investigation by the Ontario Securities Commission or the Attorney General regarding Mr.

Candido's conduct, or press for criminal charges; certainly, his co-shareholders are able to draw their own conclusion about Mr. Candido and the other respondents from the public information about them. Both the Commission and the Attorney General (or the police) have their own means of investigation and can obtain all documents that they need.

At worst, the petitioner will have to wait until trial in order for the confidentiality order to be lifted and the information made public (unless, for commercial reasons, parts of exhibit P-4, which concerns the drilling results, are kept secret from the public eye). [ 11 ] Moreover, the petitioner's freedom of expression is not being unduly curtailed by the confidentiality order maintained by Corriveau J. nor are his reputation and integrity trampled, the restoration of which is at the centre of his action against the respondents. [ 12 ] Secondly, even if a right to appeal existed, justice would not be served, within the meaning of art. 511 C.C.P. , by granting leave to appeal. [ 13 ] Corriveau J.'s judgment correctly summarizes the confidentiality rule set out by the Supreme Court in Lac d'Amiante du Québec ltée v. 2858-0702 Québec inc. , the only question at stake before her being that of the public or private/confidential character of the information contained in exhibits P-3 and P-4.

Although she did not say so explicitly, Corriveau J. implicitly, but necessarily, concluded that the information contained in exhibits P-3 and P-4 was not of a public nature (she would otherwise have lifted her predecessor's confidentiality order). [ 14 ] Having examined the documents in question, I come to the same conclusion. The fact that the contents of these exhibits may partly be known to the public does not change the private/confidential nature of the remainder of the information contained in these documents, nor does it justify that the latter be rendered public, in whole or in part.

Disjointing the known parts from the confidential ones cannot be a solution either, since it would lead to the communication of incomplete and therefore misleading information, open to all kinds of incorrect

interpretation and insinuations. [ 15 ] The petitioner's amended motion for leave to appeal shall thus be dismissed. * * [ 16 ] Another comment is in order. [ 17 ] In the course of the hearing, the petitioner advised me (and respondents' counsel at the same time) that another shareholder now has a copy of exhibits P-3 and P-4. Having been informed by the petitioner that these documents were in the Superior Court's record and had been debated before Corriveau J., this person went to the courthouse, consulted the file, was given access to the exhibits and was also given copies thereof, for which he was duly charged. The petitioner implied that the documents now being in other hands, they have

become public and that the confidentiality order should not be maintained. [ 18 ] This proposition is ill-founded. The fact that the employees of the Superior Court mistakenly – and quite surprisingly – let a third party access the exhibits, which were under seal by order of Gouin J., as maintained and made even more specific by Corriveau J., cannot justify that such order be lifted or considered moot.

One may even wonder whether the petitioner, by indicating the existence and contents of the exhibits to another shareholder, has not infringed said order. [ 19 ] Finally, considering some of the comments made by the petitioner during the hearing, it will be necessary to remind him that the fact that the exhibits were discussed today before me does not mean that they are now public: they remain confidential, as per the orders of Gouin and Corriveau JJ.

Needless to say, the Clerk of the Court and all its personnel will also ensure the confidentiality of the documents filed in the Court's record. * * [ 20 ] For these reasons , the petitioner's “amended motion for leave to appeal and request for case management” is dismissed , with costs. MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A.