2022 QCCA 1093, 2022 QCCA 1093

9298-9524 Québec inc. c. 2617869 Ontario Ltd 2022 QCCA 1093 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-030000-228 ( 450-17-007135-180 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: August 9, 2022 THE HONOURABLE PATRICK HEALY, J.A. APPELLANTS COUNSEL 9298-9524 Quebec inc.

Denis Poirier Mtre Philippe Daigle ( Daigle & Matte, avocats fiscalistes ) By videoconference RESPONDENTS COUNSEL 2617869 ontario ltd Mtre ILIAS HMIMAS ( Gowling WLG (Canada) ) By videoconference Richard hébert UNREPRESENTED Absent tony palmorino UNREPRESENTED Absent IMPLEADED PARTY COUNSEL Mo yan mei Mtre FRÉDÉRIC DUMONT-TREMBLAY ( Hackett Campbell Bouchard ) Absent DESCRIPTION: Application for case management from the respondent 2617869 Ontario Ltd (Article 367 C.C.P .).

Clerk at the hearing : René Gutknecht Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING 9:54 Commencement of the hearing. Mtre Paul-Yvan Martin, representing Richard Hébert in other files but not in this one, is telling the judge that he already notified a notice to cease representing. 9:56 Identification of the file and identification of counsel. 9:57 Discussion between the Court and the lawyers concerning the notice to cease representing from Mtre Martin. Other parties have no objection.

BY THE JUDGE: Judgment – see page 4. 9:58 Discussion between the Court and the lawyers. 9:59 Mtre Daigle has no submissions. 10:00 Discussion between the Court and Mtre Hmimas. 10:04 BY THE JUDGE: Judgment will be render as soon as possible. The parties will be notified. Conclusion of the hearing.

René Gutknecht, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The petitioner seeks the abbreviation of delays for the presentation of a motion to dismiss. [ 2 ] On 15 March 2022 the Superior Court rendered judgment and, inter alia , ordered the respondents to pay in solidum 289 737 $ to the petitioner. [ 3 ] On 29 March 2022 the respondents 9298-9524 Québec Inc. and Denis Poirier (herein “respondents P”) filed a notice of appeal and a motion for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Superior Court.

On 19 April 2022 the motion for leave was granted and the matter was deferred to a panel of the Court to be heard with a motion to dismiss the appeal. [ 4 ] On 10 May 2022, in a separate file, the respondent Hébert (herein “respondent H”) filed a notice of appeal and a motion de bene esse for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Superior Court. [ 5 ] On 11 May 2022 the respondents P filed a motion for case management with the intention to separate two questions raised in their appeal. [ 6 ] On 12 May 2022 the petitioner filed a motion for case management with the intention to fix a date for filing a motion to dismiss the appeals of the respondents P and the respondent H. [ 7 ] Both motions for case management were presentable on 17 May 2022.

The petitioner’s motion was granted in part and the single judge ordered the petitioner to file its motion to dismiss within five days and to present it on 30 May 2022. The motion to dismiss was filed on 24 May 2022. [ 8 ] On 15 June 2022 a panel of this court allowed the appeal by the respondents P to proceed but ordered them to deposit within thirty days a security in the amount of 300 000$. The security has not been deposited. [ 9 ] The petitioner now seeks leave to present on 16 August 2022 a motion to dismiss the appeal of the respondents P following their

failure to deposit the security ordered by this court.

It has also filed this same motion for presentation on 12 September 2022, which is well within the ordinary delay of thirty days. [ 10 ] The present motion is styled as a request for case management but the only conclusion it seeks is to advance the presentation of the motion to dismiss from 12 September 2022 to 16 August 2022. [ 11 ] The conclusion sought by the petitioner is a discretionary order. [ 12 ] I am not satisfied that there is an urgency that would warrant advancing the delay for presentation of the motion to dismiss the appeal by the respondents P to 16 August 2022. [ 13 ] I would be satisfied that case management of the present appeal is warranted in view of the strands of related issues that are raised.

But the petitioner did not seek such a conclusion. I would also be satisfied, but cannot order, that case management would be equally useful with respect to the appeal by the respondent H. No motion to this effect has been presented. The petitioner might consider any measures necessary to address this aspect of the litigation. [ 14 ] At the hearing Me Martin presented an oral motion, without objection, to withdraw from the present matter. The registry has since reported that Me Martin has not filed an appearance in this appeal because he has no mandate and no instructions from Me Hébert.

Accordingly, I can only take note that Me Martin does not represent Me Hébert in this matter. FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 15 ] DISMISSES the present motion; [ 16 ] CONFIRMS that the motion to dismiss the appeal by the respondents P will proceed on 12 September 2022; [ 17 ] TAKES NOTE that Me Martin has not filed an appearance in this appeal and has no instructions to represent Me Hébert; [ 18 ] THE WHOLE with costs of justice. PATRICK HEALY, J.A.