2019 QCCA 1127, 2019 QCCA 1127

Habitations Mont-Royal inc. c. Idrissi 2019 QCCA 1127 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-028353-191 (505-22-027016-189) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: June 14, 2019 THE HONOURABLE PATRICK HEALY, J.A. PETITIONER COUNSEL HABITATIONS MONT-ROYAL INC. Mtre AMÉLIE MILLETTE-GAGNON Mtre MARIE-CLAUDE MARTEL ( Arnault Thibault Cléroux ) RESPONDENTS COUNSEL

SAAD SERGHINI IDRISSI CLAUDIA MARTINEZ LOUIS-PHILIPPE BISAILLON JEAN-SÉBASTIEN CYR GENEVIÈVE GIGNAC MANUELLE PLANTE SÉBASTIEN FRIGON PHILIPPE DUPLANTIE JOËLLE ST-PIERRE SYLVIE lemay YVES SURPRENANT ALEXANDRE PARADIS Mtre JULIA PORTELANCE ( Cabinet d'avocats NOVAlex ) CAROLINE GUILBAULT SÉBASTIEN TREMBLAY RAPHAËL LETERTRE JO-ANNIE BOISSONNEAULT ARIANE BIRDJANDI RICHARD LAPLANTE JESSICA FOURNEL- CHARBONNEAU LUCIE FOURNEL MARIE-ÈVE BERNIER JEAN CHARLES ARAMAN BAYA RAMAZANI ANDRÉ GUILBAUT VANESSA CHARLEBOIS HUGO DELISLE RICHARD BOIES OLIVIER GÉLINAS-LAPORTE MARIE-ÈVE DESCHAMPS DAVID RHEAULT GILLES RHEAULT EDWARD MALDONADO HELEN CARVAJAL SOPHIE DUMAIS-LEBLANC JEAN-FRANÇOIS TANGUAY JOSCELYN JEAN

AUDREY GOUR HUGUES CHASSÉ ISABELLE VALLIÈRES SANIT SANANIKONE KARINE CASAVANT-PICARD MYLÈNE THERRIEN FÉLIX CLAVET CATHERINE BERGERON LEGROS RAPHAËL CHARNEAU VÉRONIQUE THUOT VALÉRIE NADEAU JEAN-SÉBASTIEN HENRY-LEBEL MICHAEL TSANG YAN FONG CHING CHING YANG JESSICA KIM BURELLE MAXIME MASSY-GIASSON GENEVIÈVE BROSSOIT CHRISTIAN LEMIEUX MIKAËL DESCHENES-DIONNE DOMINIQUE WATTIER ANNICK PROVENCHER MARTIN LEFEBVRE ANNIE-CLAUDE COUTURE MÉLANIE BOYER FRANÇOIS-OLIVIER TISSOT ÉRIC MARTIN PATTRICK HUDSON GILLES DUGUAY LISE ROY PATRICK LAPIERRE MICHELLE BEAULIEU NIICOLAS DENOMMÉE MARTINE BLAIN NICU VIRGIL MOISE ÉMILIE POIRIER FRÉDÉRIC CANTIN SIMON MORIN KIM ALLARD-MORIN

PATRICK HUARD MARILYNE TRUDEAU SIMON A. BÉLANGER MARJORIE GERVAIS IMPLEADED PARTIES COUNSEL 9264-3212 QUÉBEC INC. CHARLES BEAUDOIN Absent unrepresented DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment rendered in the course of the proceeding on May 7, 2019 by the honorable Claude Laporte of the Quebec Court, District of Longueuil (s. 32 and 357 C.C.P. ) . Clerk: Stephane Robinson Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING 9:31 Continuation of the hearing held on June 12, 2019. Counsel is exempted from attending the hearing. BY THE JUDGE : JUDGMENT – SEE PAGE 5. (

s) Stephane Robinson Clerk BY THE JUDGE JUDGMENT [ 1 ] There is before me a motion, brought under

article 32 C.C.P., for leave to appeal a decision rendered by the Court of Quebec in the course of case management. Such a motion can only be granted in exceptional circumstances and only if the decision in question is prima facie unreasonable in view of the guiding principles of civil procedure. [1] The petitioner’s burden on such a motion is demanding. [ 2 ] The petitioner and two others have been sued by the seventy-eight (78) respondents on this motion in an action for the reimbursement of taxes paid and damages for a total of $1,533,000.00.

An exception to dismiss was presented with allegations that there was no lis between the petitioner and the respondents, prescription and an absence of fault. The management judge concluded that these matters should be considered at the hearing on the merits and, after further submissions on this question, rendered judgment to this effect. The petitioner filed a notice of appeal against this decision, and the present motion for leave to appeal, alleging a breach of the right to heard, serious arguments to support its motion to dismiss, proportionality and the proper administration of justice.

[ 3 ] There is no doubt that the questions raised by the petitioner before the management judge are significant and that the decision of the management judge might cause inconvenience in its conduct of the case. It is possible that at trial the petitioner will prevail. But these points are not in issue on this motion. That issue is whether the management judge’s decision to defer those questions until the trial was unreasonable on its face.

The petitioner cannot discharge its burden to meet this standard unless it can also demonstrate that the management judge’s decision caused serious or irremediable prejudice. [2] [ 4 ] The decision of a management judge is highly discretionary and as a result an appellate court, including a single judge on a motion for leave, should show significant deference to such decisions. [3] If that decision causes inconvenience to a party, or if a party disagrees with it, or even if that decision is wrong, it does not necessarily follow that the decision is unreasonable.

If another judge decides the questions differently, that too does not imply that the decision of the management judge was unreasonable. The standard is whether serious prejudice was caused by a decision that no judge could reasonably make in the circumstances. [ 5 ] The principles applicable on the present motion have been stated and restated in an unbroken line of jurisprudence. [ 6 ] In the present matter the management judge was fully alert to the nature range and depth of the issues raised by the petitioners.

It is also apparent that the judge was entirely aware of the scope of the discretion afforded to the management judge. As a consequence of the judge’s decision, the petitioner will have ample opportunity to raise the same issues at trial. [ 7 ] FOR THESE REASONS the motion is dismissed with judicial costs . PATRICK HEALY, J.A.