2018 QCCA 1592, 2018 QCCA 1592

Grill c. Édifice 6767 Boulevard Léger inc. 2018 QCCA 1592 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-027620-186 (500-17-030447-067, 500-17-030460-060) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: September 24, 2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE nicholas kasirer , J.A. dominique bélanger , J.A. manon savard , J.A. APPELLANT COUNSEL PETER GRILL Mtre DANIEL SIRHAN RESPONDENTS COUNSEL ÉDIFICE 6767 BOULEVARD LÉGER INC. OLYMBEC INVESTMENTS INC. Mtre JEAN-PHILIPPE BOLDUC (Les Services Juridiques Aquilam Enr.) IMPLEADED PARTY CHARLES GRILL Absent and not represented

On appeal from a judgment rendered on May 23, 2018 by the Honourable Justice Marie- Anne Paquette of the Superior Court, District of Montreal DESCRIPTION : Application to dismiss an appeal (Article 365, paragraph 1 C.C.P .) Clerk: Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 2:52 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. 2:52 Submissions by Mtre Bolduc. 2:58 Submissions by Mtre Sirhan. 3:22 Reply by Mtre Bolduc. 3:24 Recess. 3:32 Resumption of the hearing. 3:32 By the Court: judgment. 3:34 Conclusion of the hearing.

Robert Osadchuck Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The respondents have filed an application to dismiss Peter Grill’s appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, District of Montreal, rendered on May 23, 2018, which, inter alia , held the appellant and Charles Grill solidarily liable to the respondents for certain damages as occupation rent . [ 2 ] The notice of appeal contains no plausible argument to suggest that the judge erred in law. Contrary to the appellant’s submission before us, the basis of the judge’s finding of the appellant’s liability was not contractual, but extracontractual.

No serious grounds have been raised to show that the judge misconstrued the rules on directors’ and officers’ liability or the rules on piercing the corporate veil. [ 3 ] On closer examination, the appeal proposes a contestation of the judge’s findings of facts, in particular, those relating to whether the appellant should be held responsible for conduct that he claims is attributable only to his brother, Charles Grill. Nothing in the notice of appeal suggests, however, with the degree of precision required in such matters, that the judge erred in fact on this or any other material point.

The appellant simply seeks a general retrial of the case which is not the function of an appeal in this Court.

[4] A word should be added in respect of the appellant’s argument that the judge failed to conduct the trial impartially. In light ofthe strong presumption of impartiality that benefits judges in Canada, it is a most serious matter for a party – represented here by counsel– to make such an accusation without meaningful indications of bias: Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada, 2003 SCC 45 , [2003]2 S.C.R. 259. A judge is not biased, of course, simply because he or she rejects a party’s arguments.

The appellant has failed to raiseeven a prima facie argument that would suggest that circumstances exist justifying a finding of reasonable apprehension of bias. [5] The appeal presents no reasonable prospect of success. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the Court: [6] GRANTS the motion to dismiss the appeal, with legal costs; [7] DISMISSES the appeal, with legal costs. nicholas kasirer, J.A. dominique bélanger, J.A. manon savard, J.A.