2014 QCCA 2005, 2014 QCCA 2005

Deloitte & Touche, l.l.p. c. Autorité des marchés financiers 2014 QCCA 2005 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-023999-139 ( 500-06-000453-080 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: October 31, 2014 CORAM: THE HONOURABLES YVES-MARIE MORISSETTE , J.A. NICHOLAS KASIRER , J.A. MARTIN VAUCLAIR , J.A. APPELLANTS COUNSELS DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP Mtre cLAUDIA DÉRY ( Norton Rose Fulbright Canada S.E.N.C.R.L.,s.r.l. ) BDO DUNWOODY LLP Mtre AVRAM FISHMAN (Fishman Flanz Meland Paquin s.e.n.c.r.l.) SCHWARTZ LEVITSKY FELDMAN LLP Mtre LAURENT NAHMIASH Mtre MÉLISA THIBAULT (Dentons Canada LLP) RESPONDENT COUNSELS

AUTORITÉ DES MARCHÉS FINANCIERS Mtre PETER KALICHMAN Mtre JEAN-MICHEL BOUDREAU Mtre MATHIEU BOUCHARD ( Irving Mitchell Kalichman SENCRL/LLP ) IMPLEADED PARTIES COUNSELS ANDRÉE MÉNARD Mtre MAXIME Nasr ( Belleau Lapointe s.e.n.c.r.l. ) B2B TRUST Mtre ELISA MICHELLE CLAVIER (McCarthy Tétrault s.e.n.c.r.l., s.r.l.) ERNST & YOUNG ès qualités de liquidateur de PENSON CANADA FINANCIAL SERVICES INC. Mtre BRANDON FARBER (absent) (Fasken Martineau DuMoulin SENCRL) LINO P.

MATTEO PAUL D’ANDREA JOSEPH PETTINICCHIO LAURENCE HENRY ANDRIS SPURA LOWELL HOLDEN In appeal from a judgment rendered on October 11, 2013, by the Honourable Justice Jean-François Buffoni, of the Superior Court, District of Montreal. NATURE OF THE APPEAL : Interlocutory judgment – class action - objections

Clerk: Marcelle Desmarais Courtroom: Antonio-Lamer HEARING 9: 33 Submissions by Mtre Laurent Nahmiash. 10: 33 Submissions by Mtre Peter Kalichman. 10: 59 Suspension. 11: 23 Resumption. 11: 23 Submissions by Mtre Peter Kalichman. (suite) 11: 41 Submissions by Mtre Mathieu Bouchard. 12: 01 Reply by Mtre Laurent Nahmiash. 12: 22 End of arguments. 12: 22 Suspension 12: 50 Resumption. BY THE COURT: Unanimous judgment rendered by the Honourable Yves-Marie Morissette, J.A. – see page 4. Marcelle Desmarais Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The restrictions placed on the disclosure of information or of evidence by

section 16.1 of the Act respecting the Autorité des marchés financiers [1] and by

section 16 of the Act respecting Public Inquiry Commissions [2] may appear or indeed be exorbitant of ordinary rules of evidence and procedure, but they are as clear as they are explicit. [ 2 ] Furthermore, the respondent’s several objections to the appellants’ questions were raised in the course of an examination conducted pursuant to paragraph 4 of

article 397 C.C.P., that is, an examination before defence. [ 3 ] Given those unusual statutory restrictions, and given also the specific context in which they were invoked by the respondent, a context which does not lend itself to a thorough review of the potential limits of the respondent’s proffered immunity, we are unanimously of the view the rulings of the case management judge were apposite at this stage of the proceedings and that the judgments so rendered do not, at any rate, preclude in the future the disclosure of information or documents of relevance to the appellants’ case as defendants and which are not contemplated by the said sections 16.1 or 16. [ 4 ] In reaching this conclusion, we find it unnecessary to express agreement with all of the reasons given or endorsed by the case management judge.

FOR THESE REASONS , THE COURT: [ 5 ] DISMISSES the appeal, with costs. YVES-MARIE MORISSETTE, J.A. NICHOLAS KASIRER, J.A. MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.A.