2021 QCCA 1759, 2021 QCCA 1759

Unofficial English Translation of the Judgment of the Court 9306-6876 Québec inc. c. Intact compagnie d'assurance 2021 QCCA 1759 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-029690-211 ( 500-06-001056-205 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: November 26, 2021 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. STEPHEN W. HAMILTON, J.A. MICHEL BEAUPRÉ, J.A. APPELLANT COUNSEL 9306-6876 Québec inc.

Mtre CHRISTINE NASRAOUI ( Merchant Law Group ) Absent RESPONDENT COUNSEL INTACT INSURANCE COMPANY Mtre SÉBASTIEN RICHEMONT Mtre JEAN-FRANÇOIS TRUDELLE Mtre VINCENT CÉRAT LAGANA ( Fasken Martineau DuMoulin ) Absent On appeal from a judgment rendered on August 18, 2021, by the Honourable Thomas M. Davis of the Superior Court, District of Montreal. DESCRIPTION: Application to dismiss (article 365 C.C.P.) Clerk at the hearing: Anne Dumont Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING

9:34 a.m. Commencement of the hearing. Resumption of the hearing of November 22, 2021. The parties were excused from appearing in Court. BY THE COURT: Judgment – see page 3. End of the hearing. Anne Dumont, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The appellant appealed as of right from a judgment of the Superior Court denying authorization of the class action it wants to bring against the respondent. [1] Relying on

article 365 C.C.P., the respondent applies to summarily dismiss the appeal. [ 2 ] The application to dismiss should be granted. [ 3 ] In the judgment rendered by the Court at the same time as this judgment, in a case analogous to this one (file 500-09-029691- 219), the Court wrote the following: [ translation ] [7] The trial judge (who, exceptionally, could rule on the issue, which concerns standard insurance policies and unambiguous clauses [citation omitted]). clearly explained why the insurance policies in question do not cover the risk the appellant raises or the loss of which it complains.

The grounds argued by the appellant in its notice of appeal do not identify any potential error in that judgment that would justify allowing the appeal to proceed. The particularly deficient nature of the notice of appeal must be noted here. It contains only generic, and therefore insufficient, assertions. The Court understands from it that the appellant disagrees with the trial judgment, but that on its own is not a tenable ground.

Furthermore, during the hearing on the application to dismiss, counsel for the appellant argued additional grounds that are impossible to related back to the notice of appeal, grounds that, furthermore, contradict in several respects the theory of the case presented to the trial judge. [2] [ 4 ] These remarks are entirely applicable to this appeal. The notice of appeal contains analogous grounds, which also have little substance. It is impossible to conclude based on those grounds that the trial judgment possibly contains a reviewable error and warrants a more thorough examination.

The explanations provided at the hearing by counsel for the appellant do not remedy this deficiency. [ 5 ] It is true that the appellant also raises a ground specific to the respondent’s situation, whose policy contains a clause that differs from that of the respondents in file 500-09-029691-219 and that instead resembles the one found in L’Unique General Insurance Inc.’s insurance policy. The Superior Court authorized the class action against the latter, [3] and, in the appellant’s view, it should have done the same in this case, to avoid inconsistent judgments. [4] [ 6 ] This ground is not convincing.

The difference alleged by the appellant is not at all significant, as is clear from a plain reading and comparison of the insurance clauses at issue. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 7 ] ALLOWS the application to dismiss; [ 8 ] DISMISSES the appeal; [ 9 ] THE WHOLE, with legal costs. MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. STEPHEN W. HAMILTON, J.A.

MICHEL BEAUPRÉ, J.A.