2014 QCCA 508, 2014 QCCA 508

Pinto c. Bronfman Jewish Education Center 2014 QCCA 508 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-021949-110 ( 500-17-038884-071 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: March 12, 2014 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE JACQUES CHAMBERLAND, J.A. JACQUES DUFRESNE, J.A. MARIE ST-PIERRE, J.A. APPELLANT COUNSEL YEHUDA PINTO Mtre Jean-Faustin Badimboli-Atibasay RESPONDENTS COUNSEL BRONFMAN JEWISH EDUCATION CENTER FEDERATION CJA TAL AM INC. TOVA SHIMON SHLOMO SHIMON Mtre Mathieu Bouchard Mtre Emma Lambert IRVING MITCHELL KALICHMAN sencrl/llp

In appeal from a judgment rendered on July 13, 2011 by the Honourable Madam Justice Christiane Alary of the Superior Court district of Montreal. NATURE OF THE APPEAL : Service contract – resiliation Clerk: Linda Côté Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 9:30 : Beginning of the hearing. 9:30 : Submissions by Mtre Jean-Faustin Badimboli-Atibasay. 10:01: Recess. 10:06: Resumption of the hearing. 10:07: Submissions by Mtre Badimboli-Atibasay. 10:51: Recess. 11:03: Resumption of the hearing. The panel informs the parties that it will not be necessary to hear counsel for the Respondents. BY THE COURT : JUDGMENT – see page 3. 11h08 : End of the hearing. Linda Côté Clerk BY THE COURT : JUDGMENT

[ 1 ] The Appellant appeals from a judgment which dismissed, after a six-day trial, his action in damages for the resiliation of his service contract, as well as Respondents Shlomo and Tova Shimon’s counter-claim in damages. The judge of first instance concluded that Appellant’s client was Bronfman Jewish Education Centre, and not Federation CJA nor Tal Am Inc. She concluded that Respondents Shlomo and Tova Shimon did not take advantage of the Appellant. They did not commit themselves to negotiate an agreement with him regarding the payment of royalties.

The letters dated June 13 and 14, 2006 were not drafted in order to abusively obtain a waiver from him regarding the payment of royalties but rather to put an end to the interminable discussions they were having regarding this question. The judge of first instance concluded that the damages (compensatory and punitive) claimed by the Appellant did not fall within the ambit of

Article 2129 C.C.Q . On the other hand, she dismissed Respondents Shimon’s counter-claim inasmuch as she was of the view that the Appellant was in good faith when pursuing his action in damages against them. [ 2 ] The grounds of appeal are numerous (seven in all) but, in the end, the vast majority, if not all of them, have to do with the evaluation of the evidence by the judge of first instance, an area where a Court of Appeal must show deference to trial judges ( Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 CSC 33 ).

The burden resting on the shoulders of any appellant regarding questions of fact is thus a heavy one; the burden is heavier still when the conclusions of the trial judge rest on his or her evaluation of the credibility of witnesses. Such is the case here. [ 3 ] The Court is of the view that the Appellant did not discharge this heavy burden regarding any of his grounds of appeal and this, despite the competent and loyal efforts of his attorney.

He did not convince us that the judge of first instance was in error when she concluded that the letters dated June 13 and 14, 2006 were drafted to put an end to a long-standing dispute regarding the payment of royalties and not to blackmail the Appellant at a moment where he was particularly vulnerable. [ 4 ] The judgment a quo is extremely well reasoned and the Appellant has not shown any error of law regarding the termination of the service contract, nor any palpable and overriding error regarding the facts. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 5 ] DISMISSES the appeal, with costs. JACQUES CHAMBERLAND, J.A.

JACQUES DUFRESNE, J.A. MARIE ST-PIERRE, J.A.