2015 QCCA 1326, 2015 QCCA 1326

Stoclor Holdings Ltd. c. Stocchero 2015 QCCA 1326 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-025318-155 (500-17-086199-158) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: August 4, 2015 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE manon savard , J.A. martin vauclair , J.A. geneviève marcotte , J.A. APPELLANT COUNSEL STOCLOR HOLDINGS LTD Mtre EDWARD KRAVITZ (Ouellet Nadon & associates) RESPONDENTS COUNSEL ADRIANO STOCCHERO NATERCIA VASCONCELOS Mtre MARC PERRON (LPLV Lawyers, G.P.) TEMPLARIOS HOLDINGS LTD

On appeal from a judgment rendered on May 11, 2015 by the Honourable Justice Claudine Roy of the Superior Court, District of Montreal DESCRIPTION : Motion to dismiss the appeal (Article 501(4.1) C.C.P. ) Clerk: Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 11:54 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. 11:54 Submissions by Mtre Perron. 11:56 Submissions by Mtre Kravitz. 12:12 Reply by Mtre Perron. 12:21 Reply by Mtre Kravitz. 12:21 Recess. 12:33 Resumption of the hearing. 12:33 By the Court: judgment – see page 3.

Robert Osadchuck Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Stoclor Holdings Ltd (Stoclor) appeals from the judgment rendered on May 11, 2015 by the Superior Court (honourable Claudine Roy) district of Montreal, which grants the Respondents’ Motion to dismiss the Appellant’s Motion to institute proceedings. The judgment concludes that the allegations contained in the Appellant’s Motion do not support conclusions of personal liability on the part of the Respondents, as shareholders who were sued personally along with their company, Templarios Holdings Ltd.

The Respondents seek the dismissal of the appeal on the basis that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success. [ 2 ] In its inscription to appeal, the Appellant submits that the trial judge failed to exercise proper caution in dismissing its claim at this early stage.

According to the Appellant, the shareholders triggered their personal liability by their various acts and omissions and as a result of their bad faith, fraudulent and abusive toward Stoclor. [ 3 ] In her judgment, the judge refers to the specific factual allegations of the proceedings prior to concluding that none are sufficient to trigger the personal liability of the shareholders or to justify the lifting of the corporate veil.

[ 4 ] The Court is unanimously of the view that the appeal presents no reasonable chance of success. FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED REASONS, THE COURT: [ 5 ] GRANTS the Motion to dismiss the appeal, with costs; [ 6 ] DISMISSES the appeal, with costs. MANON SAVARD, J.A. MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.A. GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE, J.A.