2015 QCCQ 14867, 2015 QCCQ 14867

Sodavex inc. c. Daniel 2015 QCCQ 14867 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL “Civil Division” No: 500-22-214290-143 DATE: December 3, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY EDWARDS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ SODAVEX INC. Plaintiff v.

RAMZI DANIEL Defendant -and- SHERIFF OF THE DISTRICT OF SAINT-HYACINTHE -and- THE OFFICER OF THE LAND REGISTRY OFFICE FOR THE REGISTRATION DIVISION OF ROUVILLE Mis en cause ______________________________________________________________________ RECTIFIED JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Further to obtaining a judgment for $13,544.77 for payment of legal fees against its former client Mr. Ramzi Daniel, and in execution of said judgment, Sodavex Inc. (“ Sodavex ”) has seized certain vacant lots owned by Mr.

Daniel in the area of Mont-Saint- Hilaire, Quebec. [ 2 ] There are three motions before the Court: (

a) Mr. Daniel’s Re-Amended Motion for Opposition of Seizure in Execution of Immovables and Abusive Proceedings (“ Defendant’s Motion for Opposition and for Abusive Proceedings ”); (

b) Sodavex’s “Requête en déclaration d’abus de procédure” (“ Plaintiff’s Motion for Abusive Proceedings ”); (

c) Sodavex’s “Requête pour vendre en bloc les immeubles saisis ou subsidiairement pour faire réaliser une évaluation de la valeur de certains lots afin de les vendre individuellement” (“ Plaintiff’s Motion to Sell the Immovables as a Whole or Individually ”). Procedural Background [ 3 ] Sodavex sued Ramzi Daniel for unpaid legal fees.

[ 4 ] Mr. Daniel is a resident of California, U.S.A. [ 5 ] On March 10, 2014, Sodavex obtained a judgment against Mr. Daniel by default to appear in the amount of $13,544.77 (“Original Judgment”). [ 6 ] On June 12, 2015, Mr.

Daniel made a motion to revocate the Original Judgment. [ 7 ] On June 23, 2015, that motion was dismissed by Judge François Bousquet, J.C.Q. at the stage of request for reception (“Bousquet Judgment”). [ 8 ] Judge François Bousquet held as follows: “Jugement au stade de la réception de la demande en rétractation de jugement Au stade de la réception d’une requête en rétractation de jugement, il est rare qu’une demande soit rejetée mais il s’agit néanmoins d’une étape qui a pour but de vérifier que la demande est, « prima facie », sérieuse.

Le critère prévu à l’article 482 du Code de procédure civile est celui de la personne qui a été empêchée de produire sa défense par surprise, par fraude ou pour quelque autre cause jugée suffisante. […] Cependant, la pièce D-4 qu’il [le défendeur] produit à l’appui de sa requête en rétractation de jugement établit qu’il savait, dès le mois de novembre 2014, qu’un huissier avait tenté de lui signifier des procédures judiciaires.

En effet, cette pièce est une lettre qu’il a transmise, par télécopieur, au bureau des huissiers et dans laquelle il dit avoir appris que ceux-ci ont tenté de lui transmettre des documents à

titre de « process service entity » (extrait de la lettre, pièce D-4). Le défendeur savait donc, à ce moment-là, qu’un document important lui avait été destiné et plutôt que d’agir positivement ou d’en demander un exemplaire, il a préféré aviser les huissiers qu’il considérait leur démarche illégale, voire même criminelle.

Le Tribunal décide donc que le défendeur n’a pas été empêché de comparaître et de se défendre par surprise ou pour quelque autre cause jugée suffisante mais plutôt par sa conduite négligente […].Or, puisqu’il savait que ces documents lui avaient été adressés par « A process service entity », il lui appartenait de faire davantage que d’adresser la lettre, pièce D-4, aux huissiers. S’il n’avait pas fait preuve de négligence à ce moment-là, il aurait eu connaissance, plusieurs mois avant le jugement, de la procédure introduite contre lui dans le présent dossier.

La requête en rétractation de jugement ne sera donc pas reçue.” [ 9 ] Judge Bousquet, J.C.Q. therefore concluded that Mr. Daniel was not prevented from filing a defence, that his motion was not serious and that his omission to appear and to plead within the prescribed deadlines was the result of his own negligence. [ 10 ] On July 21, 2015, Mr. Daniel served a motion for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal from the Bousquet Judgment.

On July 29, 2015, that motion was dismissed by Judge François Doyon, J.C.A. who held as follows: “[3] Selon le juge [de première instance François Bousquet, J.C.Q.], les allégations de la requête sont contredites par une lettre rédigée par le requérant et jointe à la requête, la pièce D-4. Or, selon lui, ces contradictions sont telles qu’elles font perdre tout sérieux à la requête. [4] Selon cette pièce, le requérant savait que l’on tentait de lui signifier un acte de procédure ou du moins un document d’importance.

Or, au lieu de tenter de savoir ce dont il s’agissait, le requérant menace plutôt les huissiers de poursuites en raison de la tentative de signification. Comme le dit le juge de première instance, le contenu de cette lettre démontre que le requérant a fait preuve de négligence et que le jugement subséquent n’a pas été rendu par surprise ou fraude, …

[…] [6] Il faut aussi souligner que, à la même époque, dans des circonstances analogues, le requérant a agi de façon similaire, ce qui a entraîné, comme ici, une autorisation de procéder par mode spécial de signification (voir Daniel c. Procureure générale du Québec et al., 2015 QCCA 97 ).” Judge François Doyon, J.C.A. also concluded that Mr. Daniel was not prevented from contesting the claim and that his failure to do so was a result of his own negligence. [ 11 ] On September 22, 2015, at the initial hearing of the above-mentioned motions before the present Court, the attorney of Mr.

Daniel pleaded that his client intended and had given instructions to seek leave from the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal Judge Doyon’s judgment. Mr. Daniel’s counsel submitted that the deadline to seek such permission was September 29, 2015. [ 12 ] The hearing of the three motions was subsequently continued to October 13, 2015 to allow for additional representations and to allow the attorney of Sodavex to amend its motion regarding the sale of the lots seized. [ 13 ] Prior to that date, on October 6, 2015, counsel for Mr.

Daniel requested that the hearing be further postponed since his client had missed the deadline of September 29, 2015 to seek such a motion for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and that it was possible that his client still intended to seek such leave. [ 14 ] On October 9, 2015, a hearing was convened to hear the verbal motion to postpone of Mr. Daniel’s counsel. However, further to the request of the Court to obtain clear instructions from his client with respect to his intention to seek leave to the Supreme Court, Mr. Daniel’s counsel, after conferring with him, was unable to confirm to the Court that (

a) Mr. Daniel still intended to seek such leave, (

b) had given an attorney a mandate to do so or (

c) to provide a time frame for such a possibility. In light of the above, and the fact that attorney of Mr. Daniel had not either presented or expressed his intention or instruction to present a motion to a judge of the Court of Appeal pursuant to

Article 522 of the Code of Civil Procedure , the motion for postponement was dismissed. [ 15 ] There is no doubt that the Original Judgment is executory. Writ of Seizure of Land Pursuant to Original Judgment [ 16 ] On July 7, 2015, Sodavex obtained a writ of seizure of certain land owned by Mr. Daniel in the area of Mont St-Hilaire. The land is undeveloped and vacant. Although there are 18 separate lots involved having 18 separate cadastral descriptions, there is only one municipal evaluation for all 18 lots.

According to the evidence heard at the hearing, eight (8) of the lots are presently subject to expropriation proceedings. There was agreement between the parties that these should not be considered for the purposes of the request for sale in the present matter. [ 17 ] On August 12, 2015, the local office of the Sheriff handling the judicial sale of the seized land wrote to the attorney of Sodavex that it was unable to sell the various lots in question given that the City’s municipal evaluation was collective for all the lots.

The Sheriff’s office suggested obtaining separate evaluations for the various lots and judicial permission to sell the lots either individually or collectively. [ 18 ] The Sheriff’s office wrote:

“Nous avons reçu, de la Ville, l’évaluation pour les lots saisis dans le dossier 750-18-000161-150 (Ramzi Daniel). Après vérifications auprès de mon attachée judiciaire, comme l’évaluation de la Ville est faite pour tous les lots, y compris les deux lots que vous ne voulez pas saisir (4 472 558 et 4 472 559), nous ne pouvons, à cette étape, et avec les documents fournis par la ville, poursuivre les démarches pour la vente des lots.

Il est de votre responsabilité de regarder les possibilités quant aux moyens légaux nécessaires afin d’obtenir l’évaluation des lots individuellement, le cas échéant, et quant à la permission de vendre en un lot ou individuellement, selon ce que vous désirez. [1] ” [ 19 ] With regard to the evaluation of property, the attorney of Sodavex refers the Court to

Article 670, particularly paragraph (

e) of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.C.P.”). The entire

article reads as follows:

670. Le shérif est tenu de faire paraître dans un journal, au moins 30 jours avant la date fixée pour la vente, un avis public contenant:

a) le numéro de la cause et la nature du bref;

b) les noms du saisissant et du débiteur; s'il y a plusieurs saisissants ou débiteurs, le nom du premier nommé dans le bref, avec indication qu'il y en a d'autres;

c) la désignation de l'immeuble ou des rentes, selon le cas, telle qu'elle apparaît au procès- verbal, avec les charges y mentionnées;

d) le jour, l'heure et le lieu où l'immeuble sera mis aux enchères;

e) le montant minimum que l'adjudicataire devra verser au moment de l'adjudication conformément à l'article 688.1. Ce montant est fixé par le shérif et doit être égal à 25% de l'évaluation de l'immeuble portée au rôle d'évaluation de la municipalité, multipliée par le facteur établi pour ce rôle par le ministre des Affaires municipales, des Régions et de l'Occupation du territoire en vertu de la

Loi sur la fiscalité municipale (chapitre F-2.1 ). Le greffier ou le secrétaire-trésorier d'une municipalité doit, lorsqu'il en est requis, fournir au shérif les renseignements nécessaires à l'application du présent paragraphe. e .1 ) s'il s'agit d'un immeuble qui sert de résidence familiale, son prix minimal d'adjudication en vertu de l'article 687.1;

f) le nom du shérif et le district où il exerce ses fonctions. Le shérif est aussi tenu de transmettre à l'officier de la publicité des droits, au moins 30 jours avant la date fixée pour la vente, une copie de l'avis, afin qu'il soit inscrit au registre foncier. 670. The sheriff must insert in a newspaper, at least 30 days before the date fixed for the sale, a public notice stating: (

a) the number of the case and the nature of the writ; (

b) the names of the seizing creditor and of the debtor, or, if there are several creditors or debtors, the name of the first named in the writ with an indication that there are others; (

c) the designation of the immovable or of the rents, as the case may be, as inserted in the minutes, with the charges there mentioned; (

d) the day, hour and place of the sale; (

e) the minimum amount the purchaser will have to pay at the time of adjudication in accordance with

article 688.1. Such amount is fixed by the sheriff and must be equal to 25% of the assessment of the immovable as entered on the assessment roll of the municipality, multiplied by the factor established for the roll by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Regions and Land Occupancy under the Act respecting municipal taxation (chapter F-2.1 ). The clerk or the secretary-treasurer of a municipality must, when so required, give the sheriff the information necessary for the application of this paragraph. (e .1 ) in the case of an immovable used as the family residence, the minimum price of adjudication pursuant to

article 687.1; (

f) the name of the sheriff and the district for which he acts. The sheriff is also required to send to the registrar, at least 30 days before the date fixed for the sale, a copy of the notice so that it may be registered in the land register. [ 20 ] At the hearing, proof was made by the attorney of Mr. Daniel by way of expert evidence by a Real Estate Appraiser, Mr. François Poissant, É.A., that the remaining 10 lots in issue (those not subject to pending expropriation proceedings) all have approximate fair market value of between $17.50 and $19.25 a square foot. According to Mr.

Poissant, the total fair market value of the 10 lots in question is in the area of $2,310,000. Mr. Poissant stated that in order to get the best price at auction or otherwise, it would be best to sell each lot individually rather than collectively.

Analysis and Decision of the Three Motions Before the Court

a) Defendant’s Motion for Opposition and for Abusive Proceedings [ 21 ] Mr. Daniel alleged various grounds to oppose the seizure. He subsidiarily invokes these same grounds to oppose the sale of the seized lands. (

a) The Original Judgment is not founded in law or in fact. That is not a valid ground of opposition. The Original Judgment is valid, binding and executory. (

b) It would be disproportionate to sell all the land (the various 10 lots) valued at $2,310,000 for a claim of $13,544.77. That is not a legal ground of opposition of the seizure. Such grounds are limited to those stated at Articles 596 and 674 C.C.P. (

c) Sodavex is violating various rules of ethics imposed upon attorneys by the Barreau du Québec by seizing land with regard to which it had represented previously Mr. Daniel. There is no legal basis to these various grounds and they are in fact frivolous. (

d) The seizure and sale of a single lot valued well above the amount owed under the judgment would be illegal. There is no legal basis to this ground. The land in issue is not residential property. The amount owing under the Original Judgment is over $13,000 in capital. Counsel of Mr. Daniel appears to take the position that Mr. Daniel is entitled to not pay the Original Judgment and that Mr. Daniel should benefit and enjoy some sort of special immunity from seizure of his assets, in particular the immovable properties owned by him because of the value of such properties. (

e) The seizure is abusive and gives Mr. Daniel a right to claim legal fees. Defendant seeks a condemnation of $4,000 in legal fees against Sodavex on the basis of abusive proceedings. However, there is no abuse of proceedings on the part of Sodavex, as alleged by Mr. Daniel’s attorney. Sodavex is simply trying to execute and have honoured an executory judgment rendered by a Quebec Court on assets owned by the person condemned under the judgment. [ 22 ] In the view of the Court, the grounds invoked by Mr. Daniel in support of this motion are frivolous and constitute a “smoke- screen” in an attempt to avoid respecting the conclusions of payment contained in the Original Judgment.

[ 23 ] That motion will be dismissed with costs.

b) Plaintiff’s Motion for Abusive Proceedings [ 24 ] Sodavex submits that Defendant’s contestation throughout the proceedings has been frivolous and excessive. In particular, Sodavex argues that the Defendant’s Motion for Opposition and Abusive Proceedings is itself abusive, frivolous, dilatory and demonstrates a temerity that constitutes an abuse of procedure which should give rise to Defendant’s condemnation. [ 25 ] Sodavex is prepared to ignore conduct of Mr. Daniel and his attorney that was previous to the date of the judgment of Judge François Doyon, J.C.A. on July 29, 2015.

But Sodavex submits that the conduct and proceedings of Defendant after that date should be declared as abusive in virtue of

Article 54.1 C.C.P. Sodavex claims as compensation for such abuse the amount of $7,597.92 as legal fees and expenses incurred in this matter since that time [2] . [ 26 ] This argument and claim are not without merit and there is jurisprudential support for such a holding [3] . It may be the case that the conduct of Defendant and his counsel have come dangerously close to temerity and abuse of proceedings which could justify a sanction under

Article 54.1 C.C.P. [ 27 ] In effect, there is little and often no legal foundation to support the various grounds alleged in Defendant’s Motion for Opposition and Abusive Proceedings. [ 28 ] However, there is the issue that it may be disproportionate to sell 10 lots of Defendant’s land having a value of approximately $2,310,000 to satisfy a judgment for $13,544.77. [ 29 ] If Defendant wants to avoid that result, he can simply pay the amount due and exigible under the Original Judgment. [ 30 ] Furthermore, unless Sodavex obtains judicial authorization to do otherwise,

Article 670 C.C.P. (

e) appears to indicate that the information to sell land by judicial sale requires the use of the real estate assessment or municipal evaluation as set out on the assessment roll of the municipality.

Since the municipality in question has only one assessment or evaluation for all the lots, Sodavex simply followed the general rules set out in the Code of Civil Procedure to obtain a seizure and sale of its debtor’s property. [ 31 ] As there was total obstruction and contestation on the part of Defendant and his counsel, it is hard to state that Sodavex did anything wrong. [ 32 ] However, as it was not a question that was entirely black or white, the Court, in the circumstances, is not convinced that Sodavex has established that the conduct of Defendant, although advocating arguments that are clearly unfounded in law, has also reached the degree of temerity required to be considered as abusive and should give rise to a judicial sanction under

Article 54.1 C.C.P. [ 33 ] Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Motion for Abusive Proceedings, but without costs.

c) Plaintiff’s Motion to sell the immovables as a whole or individually [ 34 ] Sodavex invokes

Article 687 C.C.P. authorizing the Court to sell several properties as a whole.

Article 687 C.C.P. states as follows:

687. Lorsque l'exécution porte sur plusieurs immeubles, un juge peut ordonner qu'ils soient vendus en bloc, s'il y a avantage. 687. When several immovables are seized, a judge may order them to be sold as a whole, if it is advantageous to do so. [ 35 ] Sodavex submits that it has a right to enforce its judgment against Defendant’s assets and it is not a valid ground of contestation to state that the debtor’s assets are so large and valuable that they constitute a shield to protect him against seizure and sale by creditors for minor amounts. [ 36 ] The general and fundamental tenet of our law is stated at

Article 2644 of the Civil Code of Quebec as follows: 2644. Les biens du débiteur sont affectés à l'exécution de ses obligations et constituent le gage commun de ses créanciers. 2644. The property of a debtor is charged with the performance of his obligations and is the common pledge of his creditors. [ 37 ] Sodavex submits that Mr.

Daniel is trying to subvert that fundamental rule of our law and society. [ 38 ] There certainly is some truth in that submission as it makes no sense that a Defendant be so wealthy and his assets so large that he should benefit from an immunity with respect to the general rule applicable to any debtor that, in default to pay a judgment, his or her assets may be sold in satisfaction thereof. [ 39 ] Sodavex submits that that ground or tenet is sufficient to satisfy the criterion that it is “advantageous” under

Article 687 C.P.C. and appropriate for the Court to order under that

article that the seized immovables be sold as a whole. [ 40 ] Alternatively, Sodavex also requests that the Court authorize that an evaluation of certain lots be made and to authorize the sale of one or two of the immovables in satisfaction of the Original Judgment and that the Court authorize the sale of one or two lots individually. [ 41 ] For such an order, Sodavex relies, apart from

Article 687 C.C.P., on the following articles of the Code of Civil Procedure : 2. The rules of procedure in this Code are intended to render effective the substantive law and to ensure that it is carried out; and failing a provision to the contrary, failure to observe the rules which are not of public order can only affect a proceeding if the defect has not been remedied when it was possible to do so. The provisions of this Code must be interpreted the one by the other, and, so far as possible, in such a way as to facilitate rather than to delay or to end prematurely the normal advancement of cases. 4.2.

In any proceeding, the parties must ensure that the proceedings they choose are proportionate, in terms of the costs and time required, to the nature and ultimate purpose of the action or application and to the complexity of the dispute; the same applies to proceedings authorized or ordered by the judge. 20. Whenever this Code contains no provision for exercising any right, any proceeding may be adopted which is not inconsistent with this Code or with some other provision of law. 46. The courts and judges have all the powers necessary for the exercise of their jurisdiction.

They may, at any time and in all matters, whether in first instance or in appeal, issue orders to safeguard the rights of the parties, for such time and on such conditions as they may determine. As well, they may, in the matters brought before them, even on their own initiative, issue injunctions or reprimands, suppress writings or declare them libellous, and make such orders as are appropriate to deal with cases for which no specific remedy is provided by law.

[ 42 ] The Court considers that the alternative conclusions of this Motion are supported by these articles in the present circumstances. [ 43 ] The Legislator did not intend that

Article 670 (

e) create an obstacle and immunity for execution of a judgment with regard to one lot or cadastral designation when the municipality has chosen to designate several lots in a single unit for the purposes of real estate evaluation. Nothing in the Code of Civil Procedure prohibits that, when circumstances warrant, a single lot or an immovable referred to by a single cadastral designation be sold at a judicial sale in order to satisfy a judgment.

That is in fact the normal and general process. [ 44 ] It is instead an anomaly in the present circumstances that several lots or cadastral designations be grouped together by the municipality under one real estate evaluation or assessment unit. [ 45 ] The Court is of the view that the present circumstances fall exactly under the purview of Articles 2, 20, 46 and 687 C.C.P. [ 46 ] The Court is called upon to complete and interpret the provisions of the Code in order to ensure its normal operation and the normal exercise of its provisions. [ 47 ] Furthermore, the Court considers that

Article 4.2 C.C.P. also applies. The Supreme Court has decided that the rule of proportionality is not simply an

article of

interpretation but a fundamental rule to be respected under our law and in particular under our Code of Civil Procedure . Professor Catherine Piché states: “La Cour suprême du Canada a récemment traité de la proportionnalité dans l’arrêt Marcotte c. Longueuil (Ville de) , un dossier qui provenait de la Cour d’appel du Québec et nécessitait une interprétation des règles québécoises sur le recours collectif.

La majorité, sous la plume du juge LeBel, y reconnaît que la proportionnalité est un principe directeur, par opposition à un « simple principe à valeur interprétative », et se sert du principe comme source d’un pouvoir d’intervention des tribunaux.” [4] [ 48 ] Moreover, the power of the Court to authorize that only individual immovables be sold when several immovables are seized accords with a reasonable

interpretation a contrario of

Article 687 C.C.P. The legislator has expressly stated that the Courts are authorized to sell several immovables as a whole, "if it is advantageous to do so". Therefore, it would be logical, in virtue of the same article, that the Courts implicitly have the authorization to sell individual immovables that, for administrative municipal real estate assessment purposes or for other reasons, have been grouped together, when and "if it is advantageous to do so". [ 49 ] Mr. Daniel and his attorney submit that the individual sale of the lots would be advantageous to Mr.

Daniel and would give rise to a higher price of sale. Mr. Daniel can therefore not credibly object to the sale of distinct lots which would be to his benefit, and in accord with his expressed preference. [ 50 ] With respect, the position of Defendant is clearly contradictory and without credibility. On one hand, his attorney argues that it would not be appropriate or proportionate to sell all the lots to satisfy a judgment of $13,544.

On the other hand, he does not want to allow any lot, even a single lot, owned by his client to be sold, for reasons which are untenable in fact or in law. [ 51 ] It is clear that Mr. Daniel simply does not accept the validity of the Original Judgment and refuses to respect it and instead seeks to impede and obstruct its enforcement at every turn. Furthermore, Mr.

Daniel’s position contradicts that of his own expert who stated to the Court that it would be advantageous to sell and dispose of his lots on an individual lot basis. [ 52 ] The Court therefore concludes that it would be more proportionate and in the spirit and letter of Articles 2, 4.2, 20, 46 and 687 C.C.P. to order the Sheriff to proceed to sell first one and then, if necessary, a second of the properties or lots of Defendant in satisfaction of the Original Judgment. Lot or Lots Individually to be Sold

[ 53 ] Sodavex proposes to sell lot no. 1 817 208 of the Cadastre of Quebec, one of Mr. Daniel’s property. In the event that the sale proceeds are insufficient to cover Mr. Daniel’s debts, along with interests, judicial and execution costs, Sodavex proposes to then sell lot no. 1 817 207 of the Cadastre of Quebec. [ 54 ] Counsel for Mr. Daniel objects to that choice claiming that these lots are special lots, have special value or significance to Mr. Daniel (Plan of Legal Argument of Mr. Daniel’s Attorney, Exhibit D-6). The Court then requested that the attorney of Mr.

Daniel provide his choice for possible other lots to be sold that would be of more minor and of lesser importance to him. The answer received from the attorney of Mr. Daniel was that Mr. Daniel would not provide any suggestion or preference as to which lot could be sold because he objected out of principle to the sale of any of his property as he did not accept the condemnation contained in the Original Judgment (Exhibit D-7, E-mail of attorney of Mr. Daniel dated October 13, 2015). [ 55 ] The Court will therefore authorize the sale of lot no. 1 817 208 of the Cadastre of Quebec.

The Court will not authorize at this time the potential sale of a second lot. Given the amounts in issue, it is unlikely that such a second sale will be necessary. In the event that such a second sale will be necessary, Sodavex will be required to present a new motion to the Court to obtain the requested authorization. Evaluation or Assessment to be Used for Purposes of

Article 687 (

e) C.C.P. [ 56 ] Sodavex proposes to retain a Registered Real Estate Appraiser in order to determine the appraised value of the lot to be sold and that such evaluation be used for the purpose of

Article 687 (

e) C.C.P. so the Sheriff can proceed to the sale. The attorney of Mr. Daniel objects to proceeding in that fashion. He fears for the objectivity of such an evaluator. In response, Sodavex states that the appraiser would be duly registered with the Ordre des évaluateurs agréés du Québec and the method and criteria to be followed would be these stipulated under the applicable “ Act Respecting Municipal Taxation ” (

Loi sur la fiscalité municipale ) [5] . Sodavex asks that the costs of the appraisal be included as judicial costs of the judicial sale and paid from the proceeds of the eventual sale. [ 57 ] This proposal of Sodavex appears, on many levels, satisfactory. [ 58 ] However, there appears to be a better option. Mr. Daniel’s attorney prefers to use the real estate assessment made by the Registered Real Estate Appraiser Mr. Poissant who testified at the hearing. Mr.

Daniel’s attorney concluded that the proper assessment should be based on his testimony of a value of between $17.50 and $19.25 per square foot (Attorney of Mr. Daniel’s Plan of Legal Argument, Exhibit D-6, p. 5, paragraph 6). In the said Plan of Legal Argument, it was stated that the approximate value was $175,000 based upon an estimated value of $17.50 per square foot. [ 59 ] In order to further safeguard Mr. Daniel’s rights, the Court will use the number of $19.25. The square foot area of lot no. 1 817 208 of the Cadastre of Quebec is 10,030 [6] . Therefore, according to the testimony heard on behalf of Mr.

Daniel, this lot would have an approximate fair market value of $193,077.50. [ 60 ] There are two advantages to using this amount for the applicable assessment. First, in keeping with the rule of proportionality, it will eliminate the additional cost of the real estate appraiser’s report to be proposed by Sodavex. Second, the valuation is provided by the proof administered before the Court by Mr. Daniel and his attorney themselves and therefore constitutes an admission on their part as to the value of the land and cannot accordingly be objected to by them.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES Ramzi Daniel’s Re-Amended Motion for Opposition of Seizure in Execution of Immovables and Abusive Proceedings; WITH COSTS ;

DISMISSES Sodavex Inc.’s “Requête en déclaration d’abus de procédure”; WITHOUT COSTS ; GRANTS in part Sodavex Inc.’s “Requête pour vendre en bloc les immeubles saisis ou subsidiairement pour faire réaliser une évaluation de la valeur de certains lots afin de les vendre individuellement amendée”; ORDERS the Sheriff of the District of Saint-Hyacinthe, mis en cause, to proceed to the sale of lot no. 1 817 208 of the Cadastre of Quebec; DECLARES that for such sale of lot no. 1 817 208 of the Cadastre of Quebec, the “assessment of the immovable”/“évaluation de l’immeuble” in accordance with

Article 670 (

e) of the Code of Civil Procedure is $193,077.50; ORDERS the said Sheriff to use the amount of $193,077.50 in order to determine and apply the formula stipulated at

Article 670 (

e) of the Code of Civil Procedure in replacement and in lieu of the “assessment of the immovable as entered on the assessment roll of the municipality/évaluation de l’immeuble portée au rôle d’évaluation de la municipalité” in accordance with the text of

Article 670 (

e) of the Code of Civil Procedure ; RESERVE unto Sodavex Inc. its rights to proceed to request authorization to sell other lots of Mr. Ramzi Daniel in the event that the sale of the above-mentioned lot is not sufficient to pay the amount owed under the Original Judgment, with interest, additional indemnity, judicial cost and the costs of the judicial sale; WITH COSTS against Ramzi Daniel. __________________________________ Jeffrey Edwards, J.C.Q. Me Guillaume Pelegrin Sodavex inc. Attorneys for Plaintiff Me Richard Friedman Me David Durand Bell Rudick & Friedman Attorneys for Defendant Dates of hearing: September 22 and October 9 and 13, 2015