2023 QCCA 1617, 2023 QCCA 1617

Rankin c. Fermes Lebec inc. 2023 QCCA 1617 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-030221-220 ( 760-17-003751-149 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: December 14, 2023 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE, J.A. BENOÎT MOORE, J.A. SOPHIE LAVALLÉE, J.A. APPELLANTS COUNSEL David I. Rankin JEAN RANKIN Mtre Gordon M. Selig RESPONDENTS COUNSEL Les fermes lebec inc. Mtre STÉPHANE PERRAS ( Perras Couillard Avocats) By videoconference FERME KARL WANIA ET SHEROLYN DAHMÉ S.E.N.C.

KARL WANIA SHEROLYN DAHMÉ Mtre Martin Filion ( Me Martin Filion, avocat ) By videoconference On appeal from a judgment rendered on September 2 , 2022, by the Honourable Mark Phillips of the Superior Court , District of Beauharnois . NATURE OF THE APPEAL: Civil procedure – Preliminary grounds – Inadmissibility – Cancellation of registration in the land register. Clerk at the hearing : Vitélina Saint-Phard Courtroom: Antonio-Lamer HEARING

9:31 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. Preliminary remark by the Court. 9:32 Submissions by Mtre Selig. 9:43 Question from the Court and response from Mtre Selig. 9:51 Mtre Selig resumes his submissions. 9:56 Discussion between the Court and Mtre Selig. 10:29 Recess of the hearing. 10:33 Resumption of the hearing. 10:35 BY THE COURT: Judgment – see page 3. Comment from Mtre Perras. 10:36 Conclusion of the hearing.

Vitélina Saint-Phard, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The appellants argue that by dismissing in part their re-amended defence and cancelling their advance registration in the land register the trial judge disregarded ss. 21 and 22 of the Farm Debt Mediation Act [1] (the “ FDMA ”) or its predecessor legislation. [2] [ 2 ] The debate arose in the context of eviction proceedings undertaken against the appellants in 2014 by respondents Karl Wania, Sherolyn Dahmé and Ferme Karl Wania et Sherolyn Dahmé S.E.N.C. (collectively the “Wanias”).

The appellants contested the eviction while claiming to be the rightful owners of the property in question. In May 2018, they filed an amended defence and published an advance registration in the land register with respect to all the eight lots that had previously formed part of the Rankin farm. [ 3 ] Six of these lots were acquired from the Wanias by respondent Les Fermes Lebec inc. (“Lebec”) in 2009. Lebec only became aware of the advance registration in early 2021, when it sought to sell the lots.

Although Lebec was not initially a party to the proceedings, it has since become a third party intervenor. [ 4 ] The appellants essentially argue that their former secured creditors, the CIBC and/or Fred Stevenson, the latter having been subrogated in the rights of the CIBC, were required, under pain of nullity, to give them prior written notice of their intention to enforce a remedy or commence any proceedings for recovery of a debt, the realization of any security or the taking of their property as well as to advise them of their right to seek mediation under s. 5 of the FDMA . [3] [ 5 ] The appellants assert that the respondents’ failure — in contravention of the prior notice requirement set out in s. 21 of the FDMA — to advise them of their right to mediation before launching proceedings that led to a forced surrender of their property served to nullify all acts of conveyancing subsequent to the forced surrender, including Lebec’s title to the property, without the need for them to challenge said title. [ 6 ] Their argument is identical to the one that was dismissed in first instance and which the trial judge summarized as follows: [66] In their Re-Amended Defence, the Rankins go on to assert that the legal consequence of the alleged improper conduct of CIBC and of Mr.

Stevenson is that “all of the foregoing acts make the transfer(

s) of the titles in question null, illegal and essentially inexistent.” In short, since certain notice was not given in the initial demand letter of November 1997, as required by the Farm Debt Mediation Act , combined with Mr. Stevenson’s actions, everything that followed must now come tumbling down like a house of cards. [ 7 ] Said argument fails to consider that the appellants never “[sought] appropriate remedies against the[ir] creditor” under s. 22 (1) of the FDMA in order to annul the taking of the property.

As the trial judge noted, the appellants did not appeal or seek the revocation of the judgment whereby Mr. Stevenson took their property in payment, nor did they seek to pursue legal action against him in any way. Moreover, they never impleaded the CIBC or Mr. Stevenson in their proceedings. [ 8 ] Furthermore, their contention disregards the “innocent parties” protection provided for in s. 22 (2) of the FMDA.

The argument that Lebec should not be entitled to benefit from the exception — because it purchased its six lots from the Wanias, who themselves were never creditors of the appellants — is legally untenable. [ 9 ] In the Court’s opinion, the trial judge rightfully dismissed the appellants’ argument after concluding that they had not raised their grievance under the provisions of the FDMA or its predecessor legislation in a timely manner and that Lebec was entitled to benefit from the rules protecting good-faith third party purchasers. The trial judge also properly noted that the appellants had failed to make

Lebel a party to the proceedings by way of an official summons, in accordance with the rules of the Code of Civil Procedure , even though they sought to affect its property rights. He then concluded that, in any event, such proceedings would have been dismissed as unfounded and that, consequently, the advance registration of such proceedings must suffer the same fate and be struck. [ 10 ] The trial judgment is flawless, and the appeal has no merit. FOR THESE REASONS THE COURT: [ 11 ] DISMISSES the appeal with legal costs. GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE, J.A. BENOÎT MOORE, J.A. SOPHIE LAVALLÉE, J.A.