2023 QCCA 1357, 2023 QCCA 1357

Son c. Grifols Canada Therapeutics Inc. 2023 QCCA 1357 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-030518-237 ( 500-22-267507-211 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: October 30, 2023 THE HONOURABLE FRÉDÉRIC BACHAND, J.A. APPLICANT COUNSEL MICHAEL SON Mtre JACQUELINE SANDERSON ( Me Jacqueline Sanderson ) By videoconference RESPONDENT COUNSEL GRIFOLS CANADA THERAPEUTICS INC.

Mtre CHARIF EL-KHOURI Mtre VINCENT LALONDE ( Stikeman Elliott ) DESCRIPTION: Motion for permission to appeal an interlocutory rendered on March 29, 2023 by the honourable Daniel Bourgeois of the Court of Quebec, registry of Montreal, which allowed an objection to evidence. (Art. 31 C.C.P. ) Clerk at the hearing: Chloé Côté-Sauvageau Courtroom: RC.18 HEARING 9:31 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of the file and counsel.

9:32 Discussion between the Judge and Mtre Sanderson concerning her request to file a

summary of the important passages of the stenographic notes and two attached documents this morning. 9:33 Comment by Mtre El-Khouri concerning the request of Mtre Sanderson. 9:34 Comment by the Judge to Mtre Sanderson. Submissions by Mtre Sanderson. 9:36 Question by the Judge and answer by Mtre Sanderson. 9:42 Submissions by Mtre El-Khouri. 9:45 Comments by the Judge and answers by Mtre El-Khouri. 9:47 Mtre El-Khouri resumes his submissions. 9:51 Question by the Court and answer by Mtre El-Khouri. 9:52 Reply by Mtre Sanderson. 9:53 Recess of the hearing. 10:04 Resumption of the hearing.

BY THE JUDGE : Judgment – see page 3. 10:06 Conclusion of the hearing. Chloé Côté-Sauvageau, clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The applicant seeks leave to appeal from a judgment, rendered during the evidence stage of a one-day trial, dismissing what I understand from the record to be a request for a postponement.

The applicant submitted that such postponement would have provided him with an opportunity to obtain further evidence that was allegedly relevant to a proper assessment of the credibility of one of the respondent’s witnesses. [ 2 ] Before dismissing the applicant’s request, the judge noted the differences between a trial and the discovery process, and he emphasized that it was the applicant’s responsibility to adequately investigate the circumstances of the case during the pre-trial phase of the proceeding.

The judge also noted that the applicant had failed to demonstrate the relevance of the evidence he wished to obtain. [ 3 ] I agree with the respondent that the impugned judgment falls within the ambit of

article 32 C.C.P. I also agree that, far from “appear[ing] unreasonable in light of the guiding principles of procedure/ paraît[re] déraisonnable au regard des principes directeurs de la procédure ” (article 32 C.C.P. ), the judgment rather reflects a proper understanding of the respective roles of parties and trial judges in civil matters.

Moreover, given the questionable relevance of the evidence sought by the applicant, the judgment appears to me to be consistent with important guiding principles of procedure, including the principle according to which the case ought to be confined to what is necessary to resolve the dispute (article 19 para. 2 C.C.P. ) as well the principle of proper case management (article 9 para. 2 C.C.P. ). FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 4 ] DISMISSES the application for leave to appeal, with legal costs. FRÉDÉRIC BACHAND, J.A.