2017 QCCA 1783, 2017 QCCA 1783

9183-2212 Québec inc. c. Bill Wong inc. 2017 QCCA 1783 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-027142-173 (500-17-095115-161, 500-17-095142-165) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: November 8, 2017 THE HONOURABLE MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.A. PETITIONER COUNSEL 9183-2212 QUÉBEC INC. Mtre BRUCE TAUB (Bruce Taub Avocats) RESPONDENT COUNSEL BILL WONG INC. Mtre JULIEN LUSSIER (IMK S.E.N.C.R.L./IMK L.L.P.) DESCRIPTION: Application to suspend the provisional execution of a judgment rendered on October 18, 2017 by the Honourable Anne Jacob of the Superior Court, District of Montreal. (Art. 660 C.C.P. ) Clerk: Quentin A. Desrosiers Courtroom: RC.18

HEARING 9:34 Identification of counsel. Recess.14:14 The hearing is resumed. Arguments of Mtre Bruce Taub.14:36 Recess.14:38 The hearing is resumed.14:39 Arguments of Mtre Julien Lussier.14:51 Rebuttal of Mtre Taub.14:57 Rebuttal Mtre Lussier.14:59 Recess.15:34 The hearing is resumed BY THE JUDGE: Judgment – see page 3.15:37 Conclusion of the hearing. Quentin A. DesrosiersClerk BY THE JUDGE JUDGMENT [1] The petitioner appealed the judgment that orders its eviction after the lease he signed with the respondent was resiliated by theeffect of a contractual clause.

Petitioner now seeks to suspend the provisional execution of the judgement. [2] In 9051-5909 Québec inc. c. 9067-8665 Québec inc., (C.A.Q.), the Court upheld the legality of a similarclause and distinguished resiliation by operation of the law between the parties, e.g. the contract or the lease, and resiliation following ajudicial decision, as explained by 2958-8696 Québec inc. c.

Place Fleur de Lys, (C.A.Q.), on which the petitionerrelies. [3] That being said, the respondent’s application before the Superior Court was only to obtain the eviction of the petitioner from thepremises, once the conditions of the resiliation clause were met. The judgment is not one that pronounces resiliation of the lease. [4] An eviction order is provisionally executed as of right pursuant to

article 660 Code Civil Procedure. The petitioner seeks tosuspend provisional execution of the order. [5] The criteria the petitioner must meet are well-known: weakness of the attacked judgment, prejudice and balance ofinconvenience. In its pleading, the petitioner attacks the judgment on the ground of insufficient reasons for allowing provisionalexecution.

He insists heavily on the prejudice caused by the eviction and further argues that, rent being paid, there is no inconveniencefor the respondent. [6] As I read the Code of Civil Procedure, it must have been obvious for the legislator that providing for provisional execution of aneviction would necessarily cause the prejudice now complained of. The suspension cannot be based on this consequence alone.

Thepetitioner raises no particular circumstances that would warrant the suspension sought. [7] It is not true, on the evidence accepted by the judge, that the respondent does not suffer prejudice from the situation, as there isanother tenant waiting to take over the premises. [8] In short, although I understand that the consequences are dramatic, they result from a contractual agreement, exercised withoutapparent abuse and foreseeable by the petitioner who engaged in the conduct prohibited by the contract.

Should the appeal be successful,damages may be claimed: 9051-5909 Québec inc. c. 9067-8665 Québec inc., (C.A.Q.). [9] The petitioner does not otherwise show why I should grant its motion. THEREFORE, THE UNDERSIGNED:

[ 10 ] DISMISSES the motion to suspend provisional execution, legal costs to follow. MARTIN VAUCLAIR , J.A.