2020 QCCA 451, 2020 QCCA 451

Naimer c. Naimer 2020 QCCA 451 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-028859-205 (500-11-048871-152) DATE: MARCH 19, 2020 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MANON SAVARD, J.A. BRAM NAIMER JOBRA INVESTMENTS LTD. PETITIONERS – Respondents v. DARREN NAIMER CLIFFORD NAIMER RESPONDENTS – Applicants and GESHAR INVESTMENTS LTD. GERALD NAIMER SHARON NAIMER 9298-3832 QUEBEC INC.

IMPLEADED PARTIES – Impleaded parties JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The petitioners ask for leave to appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court rendered on February 17, 2020, in which the Court granted the respondents’ « motion to seek judicial intervention to enforce the execution of a homologated transaction relating to the oppression remedy ». This motion was taken under advisement on March 11, 2020.

On March 13, 2020, the petitioners filed an application « for leave to amend the application for leave to appeal and the notice of appeal » by which they ask the permission to add a new ground of appeal, should leave be granted. The latter motion was heard on March 18, 2020. The respondents contest to both motions. [ 2 ] The dispute between the parties relates to the execution of a transaction signed on June 7, 2019 and homologated by the Superior Court on November 28, 2019 (rectified on December 17, 2019).

The parties do not agree on the terms of their agreement, more particularly on the ownership of the shares of 8710198 Canada Inc. and the transfer of some web domains. [ 3 ] In my view, and without taking any position on the merit of the appeal, the motion for leave to appeal and the application for leave to amend raise issues that should be submitted to the Court of Appeal, in view of art. 18 of the transaction and the counter-claim of the applicants in one of the proceedings.

The proportionality principle and the interest of justice require that such leave to appeal, as amended, be granted, in order to avoid, if possible, further proceedings between the parties. [ 4 ] That being said, I may add that the scope of the issues between the parties is limited. The fact that leave to appeal is granted should not be an obstacle to the finalization of the transaction which could be done under reserve of the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

With the assistance of their attorneys, it seems, prima facie , that there is no reason not to do so. [ 5 ] Finally, it is appropriate to manage this appeal so that it proceeds without a factum.

FOR THESES REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED : [ 6 ] GRANTS the motion for leave to appeal; [ 7 ] GRANTS the application for leave to amend the application for leave to appeal and the notice of appeal; [ 8 ] GRANTS leave to appeal; [ 9 ] ORDERS the appellants, after having served a copy upon the respondents, to file in the office of the Court, no later than 30 days of the present judgment , four copies of a written argument not exceeding 20 pages , of the documents that would normally have made up schedules I, II and III of their factum and of their authorities; [ 10 ] ORDERS the respondents, after having served a copy upon the respondents, to file in the office of the Court, no later than 30 days after the filing of the appellants’ argument , four copies of a written argument not exceeding 20 pages , of their supplementary documents, and of their authorities;

[ 11 ] ORDERS the parties to present their written arguments on 21.5 cm X 28 cm (8 ½ X 11 in.) paper, with line spacing of at least 1.5 lines (except in the case of quotations, which must be single-spaced and indented), and the computer-prepared text shall be in 12- point type, with no more than 12 characters per 2.5 cm, the use of the font ARIAL-12 being strongly recommended ; [ 12 ] ORDERS that the documents filed by the parties carry a continuous pagination or tabs, a front cover and a general table of contents; [ 13 ] DEFERS the file to the Master of the Rolls to determine the date of a hearing of 80 minutes in duration (40 minutes for the appellants and 40 minutes for the respondents). [ 14 ] Costs to follow.

MANON SAVARD, J.A. Mtre Max R. Bernard LCM Avocats For Petitioners Mtre Brian Mitchell For Respondents Mtre Danielle Marcovitz IMK For Impleaded parties (Absent on March 18, 2020) Date of hearing: March 11 and 18, 2020.