2010 QCCA 2134, 2010 QCCA 2134

Unofficial English Translation M.C. c. S.B. 2010 QCCA 2134 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-019824-093 (760-11-003772-072) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: November 18, 2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE ANDRÉ FORGET, J.A. ANDRÉ ROCHON, J.A. JACQUES DUFRESNE, J.A. IN THE MATTER OF THE BANKRUPTCY OF: M. C. APPELLANT(

S) COUNSEL M. C. Mtre Michel Lachance INTERVENER COUNSEL S. B. Mtre Brigitte Brunet IMPLEADED PARTY COUNSEL

RICHARD LAPOINTE ET ASSOCIÉS INC., trustees On appeal from a judgment rendered on June 9, 2009, by the Honourable Mr. Justice Michel Delorme of the Superior Court, District of Beauharnois. NATURE OF APPEAL : BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY Clerk: MARC LEBLANC Courtroom: PIERRE-BASILE-MIGNAULT HEARING 10:14 AM Commencement of the hearing. 10:15 AM Submissions of Mtre Lachance. 10:22 AM Submissions of Mtre Brunet. 10:37 AM Intervention of Mtre Lachance. 10:42 AM Reply of Mtre Lachance. 10:44 AM Suspension of hearing. 10:48 AM Hearing resumed. Judgment rendered – see page 3. 10:50 AM End of hearing. Marc Leblanc Clerk PER CURIAM

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The trial judgment subjects M.C.'s discharge from bankruptcy to making an additional $50,000 payment to the body of creditors. [ 2 ] In an earlier judgment dated June 14, 2006, Delorme J. determined that a tacit partnership existed between M. C. and S. B., who lived together from 1995 to 2004 and jointly operated a convenience store. [ 3 ] Since M. C. sold the business, the trial judgment ordered her to pay the amount of $170,303.12 to S.

B. [ 4 ] With the exception of $10,000 subtracted from said amount, the June 14, 2006 judgment was confirmed by the Court of Appeal [ 5 ] The trial judge finds that M. C. made an assignment in bankruptcy for the sole purpose of depriving S. B. and not paying him the amounts owed pursuant to that earlier judgment. According to the trial judge, M.C. assigned her assets to a third party, namely her mother, using fraudulent practices. [ 6 ] The trial judge noted that, to date, S. B. has received $71,000 and would receive a further dividend in the amount of $18,164.89. [ 7 ] In essence, M.

C. argues that: 7.1. she did not use fraudulent practices to deprive S. B.; 7.2. the trial judge failed to take into account the $50,000 and $42,000 payments made to S. B.; 7.3. the $50,000 she must now pay the body of creditors is excessive as she has no means and is unemployed. [ 8 ] The appeal must be dismissed. [ 9 ] The evidence led the trial judge to find that M. C. used fraudulent practices to deprive S. B. [ 10 ] The evidence also led the trial judge to find that the $50,000 and $42,000 payments made to S.

B. were for purposes other than the payment of his share in the tacit partnership; specifically, notably for child support and interim costs for the couple's two children, who were in his custody. [ 11 ] Finally, we must take into account that a trial judge enjoys a broad discretion to subject a debtor's discharge to the payment of an additional sum for the benefit of the body of creditors. An appellate court should not review this discretion unless it was exercised inappropriately, which was not proved in the present case. [ 12 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT DISMISSES the appeal, with costs. ANDRÉ FORGET, J.A.

ANDRÉ ROCHON, J.A. JACQUES DUFRESNE, J.A.