2012 QCCA 608, 2012 QCCA 608

Artinian c. Kanavaros 2012 QCCA 608 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-020960-100 ( 500-17-049206-090 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: March 27, 2012 THE HONOURABLE MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. PETITIONER ATTORNEY HAGOP ARTINIAN KATHRYN ROSENSTEIN Mtre Julius Grey GREY CASGRAIN RESPONDENT ATTORNEY MARY KANAVAROS Mtre Martine L. Tremblay KUGLER KANDESTIN MOTION TO SUSPEND EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT

Clerk: Annick Nguyen Court Room: RC.18 HEARING 16:38 Commencement of the hearing. 16:39 Submission by Mtre Grey. 16:51 Submission by Mtre Tremblay. 17:04 Suspension. 17:20 Resumption of the hearing. BY THE JUDGE. Judgment – See page 3. 17:24 Comments by Mtre Grey. 17:25 Conclusion of the hearing. Annick Nguyen Clerk JUDGMENT [ 1 ] On July 30, 2010, the Superior Court, district of Montreal (the honourable Madam Justice Danielle Richer), condemned the petitioners to pay respondent $234,011.87 in damages for defamatory statements.

The petitioners appealed the judgment and, on January 17, 2012, the Court dismissed their appeal. [ 2 ] The petitioners now seek leave to appeal the judgment of the Court to the Supreme Court of Canada and they have filed their notice of application for leave (file number 34719).

According to the docket of the Supreme Court, the application for leave to appeal has been completed on March 16, 2012. [ 3 ] Pursuant to art. 522.1 C.C.P and s. 65.1 of the Supreme Court Act , the petitioners ask that execution of the judgment of the Court of Appeal be stayed “until one week after the disposition of the application for leave to appeal so as to allow an application to the Supreme Court if leave is granted” (p. 2 of the petitioners' motion). [ 4 ] In Nikiforos v. Paloukis, 2011 QCCA 2199 , 2011 EXP-3836, Mr.

Justice André Rochon summarized the applicable rules in the following manner: [4] La règle est connue.

L'article 522.1 C.p.c. est un calque de l'

article 65.1 de la

Loi sur la Cour suprême du Canada . Il autorise la Cour ou l'un de ses juges à suspendre l'exécution d'un arrêt de la Cour d'appel si la

partie démontre son intention de se pourvoir devant la Cour suprême. [ 5 ] Dans l'application de l'article 522.1 C.p.c., les juges de la Cour d'appel siégeant seuls ont toujours respecté les orientations retenues par la Cour suprême du Canada dans l'interprétation de l'

article 65.1 de la

Loi sur la Cour suprême du Canada . En conséquence, dans la mesure où une

partie démontre son intention de s'adresser à la Cour suprême du Canada, sa requête en sursis d'exécution sera tranchée en fonction des critères élaborés par la Cour suprême dans l'affaire Manitoba (P.G.) c. Metropolitan Store Ltd. [renvoi omis], qui furent repris à nouveau, dans l'affaire RJR – Macdonald inc. C.

Canada (P.G.) [renvoi omis] . [ 6 ] Ces principes se résument à ceux-ci: 1) l'appel que l'on désire porter devant la Cour suprême du Canada doit soulever une ou des questions de droit sérieuses - 2) l'exécution immédiate du jugement de la Cour d'appel doit être susceptible de causer un préjudice sérieux, sinon même irréparable, auquel un jugement favorable de la Cour suprême ne pourra remédier - 3) que la prépondérance des inconvénients, compte tenu de l'intérêt public, le cas échéant, favorise le maintien du statu quo jusqu'à ce que la Cour suprême ait pu se

prononcer sur les questions juridiques. [ 7 ] Au niveau des principes, il faut également rappeler que le juge saisi d'une telle requête ne doit pas supputer les chances qu'une

partie obtienne la permission de se pourvoir à la Cour suprême et encore moins les chances de succès d'un éventuel pourvoi. [1] [5] In the present case, I am of the view that the petitioners' motion meets the applicable criteria (despite the factual nature of some of the issues raised in their notice of application for leave) and that the situation requires a stay of execution at least until the judgment of the Supreme Court on the application for leave to appeal is rendered. [6] In order to keep a relative status quo between the parties, it is understood, however, that the legal hypothec registered by respondent against the petitioners' property shall remain in place as security for the future execution of the judgment. [7] FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 8 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 9 ] ORDERS that execution of the judgment of our Court (January 17, 2012) dismissing the appeal of the judgment of the Superior Court (July 30, 2010), be stayed until judgment of the Supreme Court on the petitioners' application for leave to appeal is rendered; [ 10 ] DECLARES that the legal hypothec registered by the respondent against the petitioners' property shall remain in place as security for the future execution of the judgment, should leave not be granted or the appeal dismissed by the Supreme Court; [ 11 ] THE WHOLE , without costs.

MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A.