R v. WORLD ASSURANCE INC., 2014 QCCA 1329

Al-Imam c. World Assurance Inc. 2014 QCCA 1329 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-024522-146 (500-17-061527-100) DATE: July 9, 2014 PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. YOUSEF AL-IMAM PETITIONER v. WORLD ASSURANCE INC. HASSAN HANANO RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT [ 1 ] On June 16, 2014, the Superior Court, district of Montreal (the honourable Mr.

Justice André Prévost), authorized the respondents to proceed with the late filing of two expert reports prepared in connection with another case and which he deemed relevant to the present case. [1] [ 2 ] The petitioner seeks to appeal this interlocutory judgment, which he considers unreasonable, as it will most certainly delay, to his detriment, a trial THAT has already been delayed once because of the illness of the respondents' counsel (who died shortly thereafter and was replaced by a colleague). He also argues that Prévost J. disregarded the criteria set out in Modes Striva Inc. v.

Banque Nationale du Canada , [2] in matters of late filing of additional exhibits and documents. He adds that the reports at stake are not essential to the respondents' case.

He also claims that he will not be able to prepare a counter-expertise because he has lost all access to the information necessary to refute the respondents' reports. [ 3 ] For the following reasons, and taking for granted that Prévost J.'s judgment is appealable pursuant to art. 29, sub-paras. 2 or 3, C.C.P. , the motion for leave shall be dismissed. [ 4 ] Prévost J.'s judgment was based on s. 17 of the Rules of Practice of the Superior Court in Civil Matters : 17. Additional exhibits or documents.

Once the certificate of readiness is issued, no other document, extract of testimony, report or exhibit may be filed without permission of the Court , which will be granted only when considered necessary in the interest of justice and on such conditions as are deemed appropriate . 17. Pièces ou documents additionnels.

Après émission du certificat d'état de cause, nul autre document, extrait de témoignage, rapport ou autre pièce ne sera produit sans la permission du tribunal , laquelle ne sera accordée que s'il le considère nécessaire dans l'intérêt de la justice et aux conditions estimées justes. [Emphasis added.] [ 5 ] Granting – or not granting – such permission is a highly discretionary exercise, directly related to the management of the case.

This Court will hesitate, indeed be reticent, to intervene in such a matter unless it is shown that the judgment is patently unreasonable or clearly inappropriate or that it threatens the rights of one of the parties on the merits or creates an irredeemable imbalance between them. [3] In Modes Striva Inc. v. Banque Nationale du Canada (where the Superior Court had refused the late filing of an expert report and other documents), my colleague Rochon J.A. wrote: 11.

Règle générale, il n'appartient pas à une Cour d'appel d'intervenir dans l'exercice de la discrétion judiciaire de la Cour supérieure à moins d'une erreur de principe ou d'un usage déraisonnable de la discrétion judiciaire. [ 6 ] Recently, in Droit de la famille — 14255 , [4] speaking of judgments related to case management, my colleague Savard J.A. commented that: [4] Le jugement du juge Wery est de ceux que l’on peut classer dans la catégorie des jugements de gestion d’instance, envers lesquels la Cour fait montre d’une très grande déférence, n’intervenant qu’en cas d’erreur flagrante ou de déni de justice ou autre

circonstance exceptionnelle ( Montréal Auto Prix inc. c. Communications Stress inc. , 2013 QCCA 1578 , paragr. 4 ). [ 7 ] Earlier, in Lévesque v. Sirois , [5] where the Superior Court had refused to allow the late filing of an expert report, my colleague Morrissette J.A., while citing Modes Striva Inc. , stated: [11] […] À moins d’une grave irrégularité, la Cour d’appel s’abstient d’intervenir en matière de gestion d’instance [references omitted]. Tout compte fait, la situation est ici assimilable à celle traitée par mon collègue le juge Morin dans le dossier Entreprises Alfred Boivin inc. c.

Compagnie canadienne d'assurances générales Lombard [reference omitted] et j’estime, comme lui, que la permission d’appeler doit être refusée. [ 8 ] In 4291034 Canada inc. v. Aqualandsis inc. , [6] the Court indicated that: [2] Le juge Forget J.C.A. dans l’arrêt Procureur général du Québec c.

Entreprise WFH Lt ée [reference omitted] rappelle : En matière de discrétion, l’appelante doit démontrer prima facie à ce stade que la discrétion a été exercée d’une manière nettement inappropriée puisqu’une Cour d’appel est toujours réticente à réviser l’exercice d’un pouvoir discrétionnaire. [3] Nous sommes d’avis que la juge Marcellin n’a pas exercé sa discrétion d’une manière nettement inappropriée et que les fins de la justice, selon l’expression de l’article 511 du Code de procédure civile , ne requièrent pas que la permission soit accordée. [ 9 ] Considering this stringent standard of appellate review, a judge of the Court will not grant leave unless the petitioner demonstrates that the judgment against which leave to appeal is sought appears unreasonable, that the matter needs to be submitted to the Court for further examination, and that the chances of success of the appeal are better than even.

Respectfully, the petitioner has not convinced me that such is the case here. [ 10 ] Without discussing their relevancy or importance, on which I am not in a position to comment, I can certainly agree with the petitioner that the respondents' reports should indeed have been filed much earlier. This, of course, did not escape Prévost J., whose judgment explained in detail why, in the circumstances, he considered that both reports could nevertheless be filed at this late stage of the suit, i.e. a few months before a six-day trial starting on October 6, 2014.

It is true that, in his judgment, he did not examine each and every one of the criteria defined by the Court in Modes Striva Inc. , supra , but he specifically referred to that judgment and, obviously, he considered it and all the criteria set out therein as well. [ 11 ] Another judge might have concluded otherwise, but it cannot be said that Prévost J.'s decision is patently unreasonable, flawed in principle or that it shows an “irrégularité grave”.

In the circumstances, the proposed appeal is thus devoid of any genuine and realistic chance of success and permission should not be granted. * * [ 12 ] FOR THESE REASONS , the motion is DISMISSED , with costs. MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. Mtre Julien Archambault DAVIS For the petitioner Mtre Michel E. Taillefer Mtre Ouassim Tadlaoui BCF For the respondents Date of hearing: July 2 nd , 2014