2012 QCCA 450, 2012 QCCA 450

Compagnie d'assurances Temple c. 9111-1963 Québec inc. 2012 QCCA 450 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-020839-106 ( 500-17-035209-074 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: March 2, 2012 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE NICOLE DUVAL HESLER, C.J.Q. FRANÇOIS PELLETIER, J.A. PAUL VÉZINA, J.A. APPELLANT ATTORNEY(

S) COMPAGNIE D'ASSURANCE TEMPLE Mtre Rachel Clément FRATICELLI, PROVOST RESPONDENT ATTORNEY(S) 9111-1963 QUÉBEC INC. Mtre Basile Angelopoulos Mtre Virginie Paquet ANGELOPOULOS, KIRIAZIS

On appeal from a judgment rendered on June 16, 2010, by the Honourable Mr. Justice Jean- Pierre Chrétien of the Superior Court, district of Montreal. NATURE OF THE APPEAL : Insurance Clerk: Marcelle Desmarais Courtroom: Antonio-Lamer HEARING 10 h 42 Submission by Mtre Rachel Clément. 11 h 02 Suspension. 11 h 24 Resumption. 11 h 24 Continuation of submission by Mtre Rachel Clément. 11 h 39 Suspension. 11 h 47 Resumption. BY THE COURT: Judgment – see page 3. Marcelle Desmarais Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT

[ 1 ] In Kosmopoulos v. Constitution Insurance Co . [1] the Supreme Court endorsed a broad conception of the notion of insurable interest to prevent insurers from relying on formalism in order to avoid paying compensation. This approach was retained by this Court and employed, in Industrielle-Alliance (L') compagnie d'assurance générale c.

Crédit Ford du Canada ltée, [2] to recognize the insurable interest of an instalment purchaser who remained indebted under the contract of sale at the time the property was lost. [ 2 ] In the present case, Respondent 9111 was contractually bound to insure the property and its debt towards the Seller, under the instalment sale agreement, had not been extinguished at the time of the fire. It was thus in a position to extract an advantage from the existence of the property and to suffer a direct prejudice as a result of the equipment’s damage or destruction.

It follows that 9111 had an insurable interest in the property and should be entitled to compensation. The trial judge properly applied the law to the facts of this case and his decision is correct. [ 3 ] Given that a seizure before judgment has a purely conservatory function, the fact that it served to dispossess Respondent 9111 of the equipment cannot be construed as a final judgment granting the revendication of the property. Further, as the Respondent points out, it retained the right to defeat the exercise of the Seller’s hypothecary claim to the property by paying the amount due under the contract.

As Jacques Deslauriers explains: …l'acheteur, le sous-acquéreur ou tout autre intéressé peut empêcher la reprise de possession en remédiant aux défauts de l'acheteur lors de l'avis, aux défauts subséquents, le cas échéant, et en payant les frais engagés par le vendeur ( art. 2761 et 2762 C.c.Q. ) .

Ce paiement empêche la reprise de possession s'il est fait dans le délai fixé dans la mise en demeure ou même par la suite tant que la reprise de possession n'a pas effectivement été réalisée par un acte consenti volontairement ou par un jugement (art. 2761 C.c.Q.) [3] . (Emphasis added) [ 4 ] FOR THESE REASONS , the appeal is DISMISSED , with costs. NICOLE DUVAL HESLER, C.J.Q. FRANÇOIS PELLETIER, J.A. PAUL VÉZINA, J.A.