2014 QCCA 414, 2014 QCCA 414

Gondal c. Developpement Metro-Montreal Corporation 2014 QCCA 414 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-024232-142 (500-22-207497-135) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: February 26 th , 2014 THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE MARIE ST-PIERRE, J.A. PETITIONERS SAIMA JAMIL GONDAL JAMIL AHMAD GONDAL Personally Personally RESPONDENT ATTORNEY DEVELOPPEMENT METRO-MONTREAL CORPORATION Mtre Pierre François McNicolls Mercadante Di Pace

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL OF A JUDGMENT RENDERED ON FREBRUARY 5 TH , 2014 BY THE HON. BRIGITTE GOUIN OF THE QUEBEC COURT, DISTRICT OF MONTREAL (Art. 26 C.C.P.) Clerk: Nadia Samy Court Room: RC.18 HEARING 12:23 Beginning of the hearing. Identification of the parties. 12:23 Mr. Jamil Ahmed Gondal requests permission to amend the motion (if need be) to add his name as petitioner. There is no objection by Mtre McNicolls to that verbal motion to amend. 12:28 BY THE JUDGE : If need be, the motion to amend is granted without cost.

The motion for leave to appeal is deemed to be presented by both defendants (which names appear on the first page of the motion eventhough it is only signed by Ms. Saima Jamil Gondal). 12:29 Mtre McNicolls requests that Mr. Murray Kertzer' name (which appears on the first page of the motion) be removed since he has never been a party to the proceedings. 12:30 Mr. Jamil Ahmad Gondal acknowledges that Mr. Murray Kertzer is not a party to the proceedings and that the judgment was granted in favour of Developpement Metro-Montreal Corporation (no one else). 12:30 The Judge takes notice that Mr.

Murray Kertzer is not a party to the proceedings. 12:31 Arguments by Mr. Jamil Ahmad Gondal. 12:35 Arguments by Mtre McNicolls. 13: 01 Reply of Mr. Jamil Ahmad Gondal. 13:07 Recess. 14:16 Resumption of the hearing. 14:16 Judgment rendered – see page 3. 14: 19 End of the hearing. Nadia Samy Clerk

JUDGMENT [1] I am seized with a motion to appeal of a safeguard order, a judgment rendered on February 5th, 2014, by the Quebec Court,District of Montreal, (Honourable Brigitte Gouin), in a matter of a commercial lease signed between the petitioners and the respondent on January 19th, 2011. [2] It is well known law that a judge of first instance enjoys a very large discretion in matters of safeguard orders and that apermission to appeal will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. (9183-7831 Québec inc (Restaurant Commensal FaubourgBoisbriand) c.

Location Faubourg Boisbriand, 2013 QCCA 818; 7664630 Canada inc. c. Dallaire, 2011 QCCA 2167; Transport GillesPerreault inc. c. 6892507 Canada inc, 2011 QCCA 386; Jean bleu inc. c. Carrefour Laval Leaseholds inc, 2010 QCCA 782; GestionNomic inc. c. Immeubles Polaris (Canada) inc., (QC CA), J.E. 97-1129 (C.A.).) [3] In the present file, the petitioners have failed to demonstrate that such exceptional circumstances exist.

Given the facts of thecase, they have failed to convince me that the judge would have exercised her discretion in an abusive, non-judicial or unreasonablemanner. [4] Therefore, I DISMISS the motion for permission to appeal, without cost. MARIE ST-PIERRE,J.A.