2023 QCCA 908, 2023 QCCA 908

Pressman Lessard c. Ravinsky 2023 QCCA 908 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-030490-239 ( 500-17-071759-123 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: June 5, 2023 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MANON SAVARD, C.J.Q. FRANÇOIS DOYON, J.A. PATRICK HEALY, J.A. APPELLANT COUNSEL RIVA PRESSMAN LESSARD Mtre ALEXANDER PARADISSIS ( Dupuis Paquin ) RESPONDENTS COUNSEL CARL M. RAVINSKY Mtre WILLIAM COLISH ( Kugler, Kandestin ) WENDY LESSARD ABSENT AND UNREPRESENTED On appeal from a judgment rendered on December 30, 2022 , by the Honourable Alexander Pless of the Superior Court , District of Montreal .

DESCRIPTION: Application to dismiss an appeal (Article 365 C.C.P. ). Clerk at the hearing : René Gutknecht Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 12:08 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of the file and counsel. Preliminary remarks by the Court. 12:09 Me Paradissis submits book of authorities. 12:10 Submissions by Mtre Colish.

12:18 Discussion between the Court and Mtre Colish. Mtre Colish resumes his submissions. 12:25 Submissions by Mtre Paradissis. 12:27 Discussion between the Court and Mtre Paradissis. 12:36 Mtre Paradissis resumes his submissions. 12:38 Discussion between the Court and Mtre Paradissis. 12:42 Reply by Mtre Colish. 12:43 Recess of the hearing. 12:48 Resumption of the hearing. 12:49 BY THE COURT: Judgment – see page 3. Conclusion of the hearing.

René Gutknecht, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The trial judge concluded that respondent Ravinsky did not handle the proposal made by the partnership to its creditors and that by the time he became involved for the purpose of reviewing the sale documents (in 2010), there was nothing he could have done to change the fact that the proceeds of the sale would be used entirely to finance the proposal.

He concluded that respondent Ravinsky had not committed a fault in the context of the 2010 proposal and added that even if he had committed a fault, “[…] there is no causal link between the alleged fault and the loss suffered by [the appellant]” (para. 110). [ 2 ] None of the grounds of appeal contests the trial judge’s conclusion related to the absence of a “causal link” between the fault alleged and the damages suffered. Therefore, even if the appellant were successful on any of her grounds of appeal, respondent Ravinsky could not be found liable.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 3 ] GRANTS the application to dismiss the appeal, with costs; [ 4 ] DISMISSES the appeal, with costs. MANON SAVARD, C.J.Q. FRANÇOIS DOYON, J.A. PATRICK HEALY, J.A.