2023 QCCA 1115, 2023 QCCA 1115

Attorney General of Canada c. Signature on the Saint-Laurent Group 2023 QCCA 1115 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-030632-236 ( 500-17-118527-210 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: August 29, 2023 THE HONOURABLE GUY COURNOYER, J.A. APPLICANT COUNSEL ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Mtre Pierre D. Grenier Mtre Erica Shadeed Mtre Alexander Little ( Dentons Canada ) RESPONDENT COUNSEL Signature on the saint-laurent group g.p.

Mtre Doug Mitchell ( IMK LLP ) Mtre Annie Turcotte ( Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP ) DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment rendered in the course of proceedings on May 30, 2023 by the Honourable Yves Poirier of the Superior Court , District of Montreal , and for a stay of the proceedings (Arts. 31 and 357 C.C.P. ) . Clerk at the hearing : Mélanie Camiré Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING

10:20 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. Preliminary remarks. 10:23 Submissions by Mtre Grenier. 11:01 Recess of the hearing. 11:19 Resumption of the hearing. Submissions by Mtre Mitchell. 11:41 Reply by Mtre Grenier. 11:45 Question to Mtre Mitchell by the judge and Mtre Mitchell’s answer. 11:47 The judge addresses the parties. 11:50 Recess of the hearing. 15:29 Resumption of the hearing. BY THE JUDGE: Judgment – see page 3. 15:37 Conclusion of the hearing.

Mélanie Camiré, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Construction of the Samuel de Champlain Bridge was far from uneventful. [ 2 ] In an Amended Originating Application , the Respondent (plaintiff in first instance), which was responsible for construction of the new bridge, seeks $378,700,000 in damages resulting from major unforeseen events, i.e., an administrative decision with respect to the roles and responsibilities of ironworkers and crane operators, a labour strike and labour slowdowns by crane operators, and a heat wave in 2018, all of which it claims resulted in delays in completing the project. [ 3 ] These events took place after the signing, on March 2, 2018, of a $172,000,000 settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) between the parties, in which a new

schedule for completion of the work was established. [ 4 ] The parties – who were fully aware that, during discovery, the plaintiff would raise a general objection on the relevance of most facts regarding delays prior to the March 2, 2018 Settlement Agreement – agreed to conduct the first examination of a representative of the plaintiff, as a test case, in order for the case management judge to rule on the issue. [ 5 ] In a thorough judgment, [1] the case management judge mainly upheld the plaintiff’s objections. [ 6 ] I am quite mindful of the expected deference to be afforded to such decisions. [ 7 ] Nonetheless, given the ruling’s importance for the discovery process, for the case management phase prior to trial and for the trial itself, I am persuaded that it is far better for the Court to examine this decision at this early stage than to await the outcome of the trial. [2] [ 8 ] On the other hand, I have not been persuaded that a stay of the proceedings is necessary at this stage.

Indeed, it would appear that management of the case can continue productively.

THEREFORE, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 9 ] GRANTS the application for leave to appeal; [ 10 ] GRANTS leave to appeal; [ 11 ] DENIES the stay of the proceedings in first instance; [ 12 ] SCHEDULES the hearing of the appeal on March 22, 2024, in the Pierre-Basile-Mignault Courtroom, at 9:30 a.m., for a duration of 90 minutes, namely 45 minutes for the Appellant and 45 minutes for the Respondent; [ 13 ] ORDERS the Appellant to file with the Court office, no later than October 10, 2023, five copies of a memorandum comprising an argument not exceeding 15 pages and the three schedules set out in ss. 51 and 58 R.C.A.Q.Civ.M. , after having notified a copy thereof to the parties having filed a representation or non-representation statement (ss. 55 para. 2 and 58 R.C.A.Q.Civ.M. );

[ 14 ] ORDERS the Respondent to file with the Court office, no later than November 24, 2023, five copies of a memorandum comprising an argument not exceeding 15 pages and, if necessary, elements in addition to those in the appellant’s schedules (ss. 47 and 58 R.C.A.Q.Civ.M. ), after having notified a copy thereof to the Appellant and to the parties having filed a representation or non- representation statement (ss. 55 para. 2 and 58 R.C.A.Q.Civ.M. ); [ 15 ] REMINDS the parties about the rule set out in art. 376 C.C.P. : 376.

The appeal lapses if the appellant does not file a brief or a memorandum within the time limit for filing. The appellate clerk issues a certificate of lapse of appeal, unless an appellate judge is seized of an application for an extension. A respondent or any other party that does not make a timely filing of its brief or memorandum is precluded from filing and cannot be heard at the hearing unless so authorized by the Court of Appeal. [ 16 ] REMINDS the parties that, in accordance with s. 13 R.C.A.Q.Civ.M. , they must send to the Court office a technological version of the paper version of their memoranda.

The preparation and transmission of this technological version are governed by the Chief Justice's Directive entitled "Rules Respecting the Preparation of the PDF Version of Pleadings, Briefs, Memoranda, Books of Authorities or Any Other Document" and the Clerk's Practice Direction No. 7 entitled "Transmission of the PDF Version of Certain Pleadings, Briefs, Memoranda and Other Documents by Means of the Digital Office of the Court of Appeal (DOCA)"; [ 17 ] THE WHOLE , with legal costs to follow. GUY COURNOYER, J.A.