2022 QCCA 345, 2022 QCCA 345

Succession de Sofaer c. Mashaal 2022 QCCA 345 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-029880-226 , 500-09-029914-223 ( 500-17-079932-136 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: March 11, 2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MARK SCHRAGER, J.C.A. LUCIE FOURNIER, J.C.A. GUY COURNOYER, J.C.A. IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF the late jack sofaer No.: 500-09-029880-226 APPLICANT COUNSEL THE ESTATE OF THE LATE JACK SOFAER Mtre ROBERT PANCER ( Phillips Friedman Kotler ) Absent RESPONDENTS COUNSEL ALBERT MASHAAL Mtre ALFRED BÉLISLE ( Godard Bélisle St-Jean & Associé

s) Absent NICOLE BENCHIMOL TINA VITARO ALLAN WIENER JEFFREY SCHRIER Mtre FRANÇOIS MARCHAND ( De Grandpré Chait ) Absent IMPLEADED PARTY COUNSEL

RHONDA SOFAER Mtre ROBERT PANCER ( Phillips Friedman Kotler ) Absent Mtre BRAHM L. CAMPBELL ( Campbell Cohen ) Absent IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF the late jack sofaer No.: 500-09-029914-223 APPLICANT COUNSEL RHONDA SOFAER Mtre ROBERT PANCER ( Phillips Friedman Kotler ) Absent RESPONDENTS COUNSEL ALBERT MASHAAL Mtre ALFRED BÉLISLE ( Godard Bélisle St-Jean & Associé

s) Absent NICOLE BENCHIMOL TINA VITARO ALLAN WIENER JEFFREY SCHRIER Mtre FRANÇOIS MARCHAND ( De Grandpré Chait ) Absent IMPLEADED PARTY COUNSEL

THE ESTATE OF THE LATE JACK SOFAER Mtre ROBERT PANCER ( Phillips Friedman Kotler ) Absent Mtre BRAHM L.

CAMPBELL ( Campbell Cohen ) Absent DESCRIPTION: 500-09-029880-226 Application for leave to appeal from a judgment rendered on November 29, 2021 by the Honourable Sylvain Lussier of the Superior Court, District of Montreal . (Articles 31, 32 and 351 and following C.C.P. ). 500-09-029914-223 Application for leave to appeal after the expiry of time limit from a judgment rendered on November 29, 2021 by the Honourable Sylvain Lussier of the Superior Court, District of Montreal . (Articles 31, 32, 351 and following and 363 C.C.P .).

Clerk at the hearing : Lesly Ramos Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 9:30 Commencement of the hearing. Continuation of the hearing held on March 7, 2022. The parties were excused from appearing in Court. BY THE COURT : Judgment – see page 5. Conclusion of the hearing. Lesly Ramos, Clerk at the hearing

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The applicant, the Estate of the Late Jack Sofaer (the “Estate”), is an intervener in the proceedings instituted by Rhonda Sofaer, the daughter of the late Jack Sofaer, who passed away on March 3, 2013. Rhonda Sofaer is the heir of the late Jack Sofaer and a liquidator of the Estate. The proceedings instituted by Rhonda Sofaer against the respondents began in 2013. They were amended a number of times over the years. Rhonda Sofaer alleges that the respondents committed faults in the performance of their duties as liquidators of the Estate or by charging excessive fees to the Estate.

She is claiming the reimbursement of those fees, as well as damages, including punitive damages. [1] [ 2 ] The respondents filed defences and cross-demands in which they claim the reimbursement of their legal fees, as well as moral and punitive damages. [ 3 ] After a few postponements, the trial was scheduled for December 14, 2021. Prior thereto, on November 3, 2020, the parties argued their respective motions to quash subpoenas duces tecum in respect of a significant number of documents.

The judgment dated November 29, 2021 granted these motions in part, and the parties’ applications for leave to appeal resulted in a postponement of the trial to May 9, 2022. * * * [ 4 ] The judge described the context in which this information and these documents are being requested. He indicated that they must not only be relevant but must also be necessary for the adjudication of the dispute that will come before the trial judge. He pointed out that the subpoenas are subject to the restrictions arising from professional secrecy and litigation privilege, and that they cannot be used as a fishing expedition.

Lastly, he highlighted the fact that the trial judge who will hear the case on the merits will not be bound by the decision to be rendered on the applications to quash and will have the opportunity to reconsider the relevance and admissibility of the information and documents requested.

It should be noted that the judge here is also the judge who has been assigned to hear the case on the merits. [ 5 ] The judgment under appeal first addressed the issue of solicitor-client privilege—which applies to some of the defendants who are members of professional orders—and then the issue of the confidentiality of certain information and documents, as well as the relevance of certain other elements. [ 6 ] In light of solicitor-client privilege and the confidentiality of certain documents and information requested, the judge partially granted the motions to quash the subpoenas and, based on litigation privilege, he authorized the redaction of part of the lawyers’ invoices. * * * [ 7 ] The applications for leave to appeal are made under articles 31 and 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“ C.C.P. ”) and, as regards Rhonda Sofaer personally, under

article 363 C.C.P. The applications, which do not pertain to a mere matter of case management, are therefore governed by the criteria set out in

article 31 para. 2 and

article 363 C.C.P . * * * [ 8 ] The applicant argues that all of the documents contemplated in the subpoenas duces tecum must be disclosed to her so that the trial judge will be in a position to render judgment. She alleges the following: 40. […] the requested documents / information are relevant and necessary for the discovery of the truth and their communication shall not lead to a situation of ‘‘déconsidération de l’administration de la justice’’. [ 9 ] Leave to appeal from a judgment rendered in the course of a proceeding is governed by

article 31 para. 2 C.C.P. That provision has been commented on by the judges of this Court in abundant jurisprudence, including by Bich, J.A., who explained the following: [2] [8] La Cour s’est abondamment prononcée sur le sens de l’art. 31 C.p.c . et, en particulier, sur celui de son second alinéa. Il ressort de la jurisprudence que, aux fins d’obtenir une permission d’appeler en vertu de cette disposition, la

partie requérante doit établir que le jugement de première instance décide en

partie du litige ou lui cause un préjudice irrémédiable, ce qui est une condition de recevabilité de sa demande, sans laquelle, même erroné, le jugement ne peut faire l’objet d’un appel. Mais cette démonstration ne suffit pas : la

partie requérante doit également montrer ce en quoi le jugement est affligé, du moins en apparence, d’une erreur de nature, potentiellement, à entraîner une intervention de la Cour. Mais cela encore ne suffit pas : elle doit également démontrer que l’appel projeté sert le « meilleur intérêt de la justice » ainsi que la saine administration de celle-ci (art. 9 et 18 C.p.c .) et qu’il concorde avec le principe de proportionnalité (art. 18 C.p.c. ).

Afin d’évaluer ces deux dernières conditions, le juge autorisateur se demandera notamment si l’affaire soulève une question méritant l’attention de la Cour et tentera aussi d’apprécier les chances de succès de l’appel envisagé puisque, bien sûr, il sera rarement dans l’intérêt de la justice d’autoriser un appel voué à l’échec.

Il tiendra compte aussi du contexte général de l’affaire, du degré d’avancement de l’instance pendante devant le tribunal de première instance, de la manière dont les parties conduisent le dossier, etc. [Reference omitted] [ 10 ] Even if the judgment under appeal contains errors in relation to the documents requested or the manner in which they are to be disclosed, these matters can be reviewed by the trial judge who hears the case on the merits, as the judge here noted—which judge, it

bears reiterating, is, in fact, the motion judge who will hear the case on the merits.

The interests of justice also weigh in favour of dismissing the applications for leave to appeal so as to avoid a further postponement of the trial, which has already been scheduled for May 9, 2022. [ 11 ] The applicant has not shown that she will suffer irreparable harm if only a portion of the numerous documents are disclosed to her prior to trial. [ 12 ] Moreover, as the following passage from the judgment under appeal [3] clearly demonstrates, the rules of proportionality do not justify granting leave in the present matter: [50] There comes a time when all of the relevant stones have been turned.

The others can be left unturned. We have reached this point. Plaintiff has ample means to question the defendants, discredit the value of their services or discredit their testimonies. Vacations, family functions and conferences are outside of the scope of these proceedings. While it may be “nice to have”, it is not “confined to what is necessary to resolve the dispute”. [ 13 ] Given the decision to dismiss the applications for leave to appeal, there is no need to opine further on the impossibility to act sooner referred to in

article 363 C.C.P. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: In file 500-09-029880-226 : [ 14 ] DISMISSES the application for leave to appeal, without legal costs. In file number 500-09-029914-223 : [ 15 ] DISMISSES the application for leave to appeal, without legal costs. MARK SCHRAGER, J.C.A. LUCIE FOURNIER, J.C.A. GUY COURNOYER, J.C.A.