2020 QCCA 1518, 2020 QCCA 1518

Succession de Moore c. Leblanc 2020 QCCA 1518 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-029160-207 ( 755-22-008724-133 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: November 13, 2020 THE HONOURABLE STEPHEN W. HAMILTON, J.A. IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE of the late albert edward moore jr APPLICANTS COUNSEL the estate of the late albert edward moore jr edward moore design inc. Mtre Muriel Librati ( Teitelbaum Librati ) Absent Mtre AUBREY MILLER ( Miller Khazzam ) Absent RESPONDENTS COUNSEL

émilie leblanc antony montana véronique leblanc peter miller marcel leblanc serge aubé luc benoit réal boulanger guy st-pierre gilles boucher louis robitaille fiducie chry-ca andré bruneau karl laliberté stéphane fortin accomodation 10-10 mp inc. patio vidal franchiseur inc. 9176-0579 Québec inc. Mtre Jacques St-Louis ( St-Louis, Champoux, avocats ) Absent IMPLEADED PARTY 9156-5822 québec inc.

ABSENT AND UNREPRESENTED DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal bene esse from a judgment rendered in the course of the proceeding on September 3, 2020 by the Honourable Daniel Lévesque of the Court of Québec , District of Iberville (Art. 31 C.C.P .) . Clerk at the hearing : Mélahelle Sicotte Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING 9:30 Commencement of the hearing. Continuation of the hearing held on November 11, 2020. The parties were excused from appearing in Court. BY THE JUDGE : Judgment – see page 3. Conclusion of the hearing. Mélahelle Sicotte, Clerk at the hearing

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Applicants are seeking leave to appeal a judgment rendered on September 3, 2020 by the Court of Québec, District of Iberville (the honourable Daniel Lévesque). [1] [ 2 ] The circumstances leading up to the judgment are somewhat particular. The Respondents sued the Applicants in damages under the statutory cause of action provided in

Section 214 of the Quebec Securities Act in relation to their investments in the Mis en Cause. At the end of the trial, the Respondents sought to amend their introductory proceeding to add the Mis en Cause as a defendant and to add conclusions seeking to annul the share subscriptions.

Before the judge ruled on the amendment, the parties asked the judge to split the proceeding, render his judgment on the issues of whether a prospectus should have been issued prior to the subscription of shares by the Respondents and whether one had been issued, and leave the amendment and the remedies for the second phase of the trial. The judge agreed to split the proceeding and he rendered judgment on the first part.

He concluded in his judgment that a prospectus was indeed required and that none had been issued and the Applicants seek leave to appeal from that judgment. [ 3 ] The judgment clearly does not terminate the proceeding, but it does determine part of the dispute. As such, it may be appealed with leave of a judge of the Court under

Article 31 C.C.P. The judge has discretion and must consider the interest of justice and the principle of proportionality under Articles 9 and 18 C.C.P . [ 4 ] In my view, leave to appeal should be granted. The questions raised by the appeal are serious. Moreover, the amounts at issue ($60,000 for each of ten groups of Respondents) are such that there will likely be an appeal as of right from the final judgment.

It would not be in the interest of justice for the Court to hear an appeal on the final award without also considering key parts of the reasoning leading to the final award. [ 5 ] I must also decide whether the proceedings before the lower court should be suspended until the appeal is heard, or whether the appeal should be suspended until the proceedings before the lower court are completed. [ 6 ] The parties take opposite positions. The Applicants argue that the proceedings before the lower court should be suspended until the first judgment is reformed by the Court.

Otherwise, they argue, the parties will debate the remedies on the basis of the wrong premise. The Respondents argue that the principle of proportionality favours letting the lower court complete its work so that the Court would hear only one appeal. [ 7 ] In my view, it is in the interest of justice and is consistent with the principle of proportionality to suspend the appeal and allow the proceedings to continue before the lower court.

All that remain to be decided before the lower court are the amounts owed in damages to each of the Respondents and the cancellation of the share subscriptions, if the amendment is allowed. It is unlikely to be a long or complicated hearing and, once the second judgment is rendered, the Court will be in a position to hear a complete appeal and to deal with all of the issues at once.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 8 ] GRANTS the application for leave to appeal; [ 9 ] GRANTS leave to appeal; [ 10 ] SUSPENDS proceedings on the appeal until final judgment in Court File 755-22-008724-133; [ 11 ] THE WHOLE , with judicial costs to follow. STEPHEN W. HAMILTON, J.A.