2017 QCCA 382, 2017 QCCA 382

Storexca Controlled Atmosphere Inc. c. Georg Fischer Piping Systems Ltd. 2017 QCCA 382 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-026666-172 (500-17-097131-174) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: March 9, 2017 THE HONOURABLE MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. PETITIONER COUNSEL STOREXCA CONTROLLED ATMOSPHERE INC. Mtre Ali T. Argun (Morency Société d'Avocats, sencrl) RESPONDENT COUNSEL GEORG FISCHER PIPING SYSTEMS LTD.

Mtre Marie-Pier Desmeules (Norton Rose Fulbright Canada S.E.N.C.R.L.,s.r.l.) DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment rendered in the course of the proceeding on February 28, 2017 by Benoît Emery of the Superior Court, District of Montreal and for the interruption of the examinations de bene esse Clerk: Adam Scott Courtroom: RC.18

HEARING 9:37 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. 9:38 Representations by Mtre Argun. 9:53 Representations by Mtre Desmeules. 10:07 Reply by Mtre Argun. 10:13 Exchange between the judge and counsel. Suspension of the hearing. 10:18 Resumption of the hearing. BY THE JUDGE: Judgement – see page 3. Conclusion of the hearing. (

s) Adam Scott Clerk BY THE JUDGE JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Seeing the Petitioner’s application for permission to appeal a judgment of the Superior Court, District of Montreal (the Honourable Benoît Emery), rendered on February 28, 2017; [ 2 ] Seeing the case management judgment of the Honourable Christiane Alary of February 9, 2017 ordering the examination of Petitioner’s representative on or before March 9, 2017; [ 3 ] Seeing the reasons of the Honourable Justice Emery that he was not sitting in appeal of the judgment of Justice Alary; [ 4 ] Seeing the allegation that the representative of Petitioner is out of the country; [ 5 ] Seeing that the absence from the country was already known when the attorneys appeared before Justice Alary on February 9, 2017 and that the attorney for Petitioner so informed Justice Alary; [ 6 ] Seeing that the applicable criterion for leave to appeal a case management decision under

article 32 C.C.P. is that such decisions are not appealable unless the judgment appears unreasonable in light of the guiding principles of procedure; [ 7 ] Seeing that the judgment of Justice Alary was rendered February 9, 2017, and Petitioner and its representative have had sufficient time to order their affairs to be available for examination; [ 8 ] Seeing that there is nothing on the face of the judgment of Justice Emery, which is unreasonable (nor for that matter on the face of the judgment of Justice Alary) given the parties’ apparent inability to agree on the conduct of the litigation; [ 9 ] Seeing that any urgency of the present situation or prejudice to Petitioner is a result of Petitioner’s inaction or perhaps priorities other than the instant litigation; [ 10 ] Seeing that the practical effect of additional delay in the file is not the issue before the undersigned; rather the issue is the reasonableness of the decision of Justice Emery; [ 11 ] Seeing that there is in the circumstances no reason to grant leave to appeal or even to shorten the delays of service;

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 12 ] DISMISSES Petitioner’s application, with legal costs. MARK SCHRAGER, J.A.