2018 QCCA 1345, 2018 QCCA 1345

Arrangement relatif à 9323-7055 Québec inc. 2018 QCCA 1345 COUR D'APPEL CANADA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC GREFFE DE MONTRÉAL N o : 500-09-027630-185, 500-09-027660-182, 500-09-027662-188 (500-11-049838-150) PROCÈS-VERBAL D'AUDIENCE DATE : Le 15 août 2018 L’HONORABLE MARK SCHRAGER, J.C.A. N o : 500-09-027630-185 REQUÉRANTE AVOCATS RONA INC. Me JULIE HIMO Me DOMINIC DUPOY (Norton Rose Fulbright Canada s.e.n.c.r.l., s.r.l.) INTIMÉES AVOCATS 9323-7055 QUÉBEC INC.

Me JEAN LOZEAU (Groleau, Gauthier, Plante, s.e.n.c.r.l.) RAYMOND CHABOT INC. en sa qualité de Contrôleur Me alain tardif mE gabriel faure ( McCarthy Tétreault s.e.n.c.r.l., s.r.l. me francis c. meagher (Lapointe Rosenstein Marchand Melançon, s.e.n.c.r.l.) MISES EN CAUSE AVOCATS

AIG TAIWAN INSURANCE CO. LTD. Me IAN ROSE (Lavery, De Billy s.e.n.c.r.l.) AVIVA, COMPAGNIE D’ASSURANCE DU CANADA Me CHARLES LAPOINTE ( Langlois avocats, s.e.n.c.r.l.) CATHAY CENTURY INSURANCE CO. LTD. Me FRANÇOIS d. GAGNON Me EUGÉNIE LEFEBVRE (Bordner Ladner Gervais s.e.n.c.r.l., s.r.l.) DESJARDINS ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES INC. Me CHARLES LAPOINTE ( Langlois avocats, s.e.n.c.r.l.) FUBON INSURANCE CO.LTD. GEAREX CORPORATION Me JEAN LOZEAU (Groleau, Gauthier, Plante, s.e.n.c.r.l.) GESTION BMR INC. GROUPE BMR INC. GROUPE PATRICK MORIN INC. Absents HOME DEPOT OF CANADA INC.

Me HUBERT SIBRE ( Miller Thomson s.e.n.c.r.l., l.l.p.) IAPMO RESEARCH AND TESTING INC Absent INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA Me VÉRONIQUE ETHIER ( Clyde & Cie Canada s.e.n.c.r.l.)

INTACT COMPAGNIE D’ASSURANCE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL OFFICIALS JING YUDH INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD. JYIC INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION Me CHARLES LAPOINTE ( Langlois avocats s.e.n.c.r.l.) Absent Me FRANÇOIS D. GAGNON Me EUGÉNIE LEFEBVRE ( Borden Ladner Gervais s.e.n.c.r.l., s.r.l.) L’UNIQUE ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES LA CAPITALE ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES INC. LA PERSONNELLE, ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES INC. Me CHARLES LAPOINTE ( Langlois avocats s.e.n.c.r.l.) LA SOUVERAINE, COMPAGNIE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE Me PIERRE-ALEXANDRE FORTIN ( Tremblay Bois Mignault Lemay s.e.n.c.r.l.) PATRICK MORIN INC.

Absent PROMUTUEL BAGOT, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL BORÉALE, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL BOIS-FRANCS, SOCIÉTÉ MUTELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL DU LAC AU FLEUVE, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE Me CHARLES LAPOINTE ( Langlois avocats s.e.n.c.r.l.)

PROMUTUEL LA VALLÉE, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL LANAUDIÈRE, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL MONTMAGNY- L’ISLET, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL PORTNEUF-CHAMPLAIN, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL RÉASSURANCE PROMUTUEL RIVE-SUD, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL VALLÉE DU ST-LAURENT, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL VAUDREUIL-SOULANGES, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL VERCHÈRES-LES FORGES, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE DU CANADA SOCIÉTÉ D’ASSURANCES SEAN MURPHY , ès qualités de fondé de pouvoir au Canada pour les souscripteurs du Lloyd’s Me ANNIE-CLAUDE BEAUCHEMIN Me NICHOLAS KRNJEVIC ( Robinson Sheppard Shapiro s.e.n.c.r.l.) N o : 500-09-027660-182 REQUÉRANTE AVOCATS HOME DEPOT OF CANADA INC.

Me HUBERT SIBRE ( Miller Thomson s.e.n.c.r.l., l.l.p.) INTIMÉES AVOCATS

9323-7055 QUEBEC INC. RAYMOND CHABOT INC., en sa qualité de contrôleur Me JEAN LOZEAU (Groleau, Gauthier, Plante, s.e.n.c.r.l.) Me alain tardif mE gabriel faure ( McCarthy Tétreault s.e.n.c.r.l., s.r.l. me francis c. meagher (Lapointe Rosenstein Marchand Melançon, s.e.n.c.r.l.) MISES EN CAUSE AVOCATS RONA INC. AIG TAIWAN INSURANCE CO. LTD. AVIVA, COMPAGNIE D’ASSURANCE DU CANADA CATHAY CENTURY INSURANCE CO. LTD. DESJARDINS ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES INC. FUBON INSURANCE CO. LTD. GEAREX CORPORATION GESTION BMR INC. GROUPE BMR INC. GROUPE PATRICK MORIN INC. IAPMO RESEARCH AND TESTING INC.

INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA Me JULIE HIMO Me DOMINIC DUPOY (Norton Rose Fulbright Canada s.e.n.c.r.l., s.r.l.) Me IAN ROSE (Lavery, De Billy s.e.n.c.r.l.) Me CHARLES LAPOINTE ( Langlois avocats, s.e.n.c.r.l.) Me FRANÇOIS d. GAGNON Me EUGÉNIE LEFEBVRE (Bordner Ladner Gervais s.e.n.c.r.l., s.r.l.) Me CHARLES LAPOINTE ( Langlois avocats, s.e.n.c.r.l.) Me JEAN LOZEAU ( Groleau, Gauthier, Plante, s.e.n.c.r.l.) Absents Me VÉRONIQUE ETHIER

INTACT COMPAGNIE D’ASSURANCE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL OFFICIALS JING YUDH INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD. JYIC INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION L’UNIQUE ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES LA CAPITALE ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES INC. THE PERSONAL GENERAL INSURANCE INC. LA SOUVERAINE, COMPAGNIE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PATRICK MORIN INC. PROMUTUEL BAGOT, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL BORÉALE, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL BOIS-FRANCS, SOCIÉTÉ MUTELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE ( Clyde & Cie Canada s.e.n.c.r.l.) Me CHARLES LAPOINTE ( Langlois avocats, s.e.n.c.r.l.) Absent Me FRANÇOIS D.

GAGNON Me EUGÉNIE LEFEBVRE ( Borden Ladner Gervais s.e.n.c.r.l., s.r.l.) Me CHARLES LAPOINTE ( Langlois avocats, s.e.n.c.r.l.) Me PIERRE-ALEXANDRE FORTIN ( Tremblay Bois Mignault Lemay s.e.n.c.r.l.) Absent Me CHARLES LAPOINTE ( Langlois avocats, s.e.n.c.r.l.) PROMUTUEL CHAUDIÈRE-APPALACHES, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL DE L’ESTUAIRE, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL DEUX-MONTAGNES, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL DU LAC AU FLEUVE, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL L’OUTAOUAIS, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL LA VALLÉE, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE Me CHARLES LAPOINTE ( Langlois avocats, s.e.n.c.r.l.)

PROMUTUEL LANAUDIÈRE, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL MONTMAGNY- L’ISLET, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL PORTNEUF-CHAMPLAIN, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL RÉASSURANCE PROMUTUEL RIVE-SUD, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL VALLÉE DU ST-LAURENT, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL VAUDREUIL-SOULANGES, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL VERCHÈRES-LES-FORGES, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE DU CANADA, SOCIÉTÉ D’ASSURANCES SEAN MURPHY, ès qualités de fondé de pouvoir Canada pour les souscripteurs du Lloyd’s Me ANNIE-CLAUDE BEAUCHEMIN Me NICHOLAS KRNJEVIC ( Robinson Sheppard Shapiro s.e.n.c.r.l.) N o : 500-09-027662-188 REQUÉRANT AVOCATS

SEAN MURPHY, ès qualités de fondé de pouvoir au Canada pour les souscripteurs du Lloyd’s Me ANNIE-CLAUDE BEAUCHEMIN Me NICHOLAS KRNJEVIC ( Robinson Sheppard Shapiro s.e.n.c.r.l.) INTIMÉS AVOCATS RAYMOND CHABOT INC., en sa qualité de Contrôleur Me alain tardif mE gabriel faure ( McCarthy Tétreault s.e.n.c.r.l., s.r.l. me francis c. meagher (Lapointe Rosenstein Marchand Melançon, s.e.n.c.r.l.) MISES EN CAUSE AVOCATS AIG TAIWAN INSURANCE CO. LTD. Me IAN ROSE (Lavery, De Billy s.e.n.c.r.l.) AVIVA, COMPAGNIE D’ASSURANCE DU CANADA Me CHARLES LAPOINTE ( Langlois avocats, s.e.n.c.r.l.) CATHAY CENTURY INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Me FRANÇOIS d. GAGNON Me EUGÉNIE LEFEBVRE (Bordner Ladner Gervais s.e.n.c.r.l., s.r.l.) DESJARDINS ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES INC. Me CHARLES LAPOINTE ( Langlois avocats, s.e.n.c.r.l.) FUBON INSURANCE CO.LTD. GEAREX CORPORATION Me JEAN LOZEAU ( Groleau, Gauthier, Plante, s.e.n.c.r.l.) GESTION BMR INC. GROUPE BMR INC. GROUPE PATRICK MORIN INC. Absents HOME DEPOT OF CANADA INC. Me HUBERT SIBRE ( Miller Thomson s.e.n.c.r.l., l.l.p.) IAPMO RESEARCH AND TESTING INC. Absent

INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA Me VÉRONIQUE ETHIER ( Clyde & Cie Canada s.e.n.c.r.l.) INTACT COMPAGNIE D’ASSURANCE Me CHARLES LAPOINTE ( Langlois avocats, s.e.n.c.r.l.) INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL OFFICIALS Absent JING YUDH INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD. JYIC INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION Me FRANÇOIS D. GAGNON Me EUGÉNIE LEFEBVRE ( Borden Ladner Gervais s.e.n.c.r.l., s.r.l.) L’UNIQUE ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES LA CAPITALE ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES INC. Me CHARLES LAPOINTE ( Langlois avocats, s.e.n.c.r.l.) LA PERSONNELLE, ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES INC. LA SOUVERAINE, COMPAGNIE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PATRICK MORIN INC.

PROMUTUEL BAGOT, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL BORÉALE, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL BOIS-FRANCS, SOCIÉTÉ MUTELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL CHAUDIÈRE-APPALACHES, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL DE L’ESTUAIRE, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL DEUX-MONTAGNES, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL DU LAC AU FLEUVE, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE Me CHARLES LAPOINTE ( Langlois avocats, s.e.n.c.r.l.) Me PIERRE-ALEXANDRE FORTIN ( Tremblay Bois Mignault Lemay s.e.n.c.r.l.) Absent Me CHARLES LAPOINTE ( Langlois avocats, s.e.n.c.r.l.)

PROMUTUEL L’OUTAOUAIS, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRAL PROMUTUEL LA VALLÉE, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL LANAUDIÈRE, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL RÉASSURANCE PROMUTUEL RIVE-SUD, SOCIÉTÉ D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL VALLÉE DU ST-LAURENT, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE PROMUTUEL VAUDREUIL-SOULANGES, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE Me CHARLES LAPOINTE ( Langlois avocats, s.e.n.c.r.l.) PROMUTUEL VERCHÈRES-LES-FORGES, SOCIÉTÉ MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALE ROYAL&SUN ALLIANCE DU CANADA, SOCIÉTÉ D’ASSURANCES DESCRIPTION : 500-09-027630-185 Requête pour permission d’appeler de Rona Inc. (Articles 13 et 14 de la

Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies et Art. 357 C.p.c.) Requête pour ordonnance de sauvegarde et suspension de l’exécution provisoire (Art. 377, 378, 379 et 661 C.p.c.) 500-09-027660-182 Requête pour permission d’appeler de Home Depot of Canada Inc. (Articles 13 et 14 de la

Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies ) Requête pour ordonnance de sauvegarde et suspension de l’exécution provisoire (Art. 377, 378, 379 et 661 C.p.c.) 500-09-027662-188 Requête pour permission d’appeler de Lloyd’s (Articles 13 et 14 de la

Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies et Art. 357 C.p.c.) Greffière d'audience : Elisabeth Lepage Salle : RC-18

AUDITION 11 h 38 Ouverture de l’audience. Remarques du juge aux parties. 11 h 40 Argumentation de Me Dupoy. 11 h 47 Remarques du juge. 11 h 51 Remarques de Me Sibre. 11 h 53 Argumentation de Me Tardif. 12 h 02 Réplique de Me Beauchemin. 12 h 05 Réplique de Me Dupoy. 12 h 06 PAR LE JUGE : Voir jugement page 3. 12 h 07 Fin de l’audience. (

s) Elisabeth Lepage Greffière d'audience PAR LE JUGE JUGEMENT [ 1 ] I am seized with several motions seeking leave to appeal and suspension of provisional execution of a judgment of the Superior Court, District of Montreal (the Honourable David R.

Collier), sitting in Commercial Matters, dated June 20, 2018, wherein certain settlement agreements entered into by Respondent Raymond Chabot Inc. as Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (“ CCAA ”) monitor were approved over contestations of the parties seeking leave to appeal. [ 2 ] 9323-7055 Québec inc. (formerly Aquadis International Inc. hereinafter “Aquadis”) is the debtor under CCAA proceedings filed before the Superior Court in December 2015. It no longer carries on its business as a wholesale seller of plumbing fixtures.

In the period of 2006-2010, a large number of defective faucets supplied by Aquadis to retail stores were in turn sold to consumers for installation in their homes. The failure of these faucets caused significant property damage giving rise to claims against insurers, subsequently subrogated into the rights of the consumers. [ 3 ] The record indicates that the monitor has been unable to reach a global settlement of all the claims now estimated in total at approximately 22 million dollars.

It instituted proceedings, with Court permission, against the Chinese supplier and the manufacturer of the faucets as well as their insurers. The judgment a quo approved the settlement of that litigation which terms include not only the release of the defendants (“Released Parties”) for claims of the monitor standing in the shoes of Aquadis but also of any claims of any persons against such Released Parties for claims arising from the faulty faucets.

Thus, Applicants Home Depot and Rona Depot or their insurers that pay the claims of consumers (or insurers subrogated into the rights of consumers) would be unable to claim in warranty or be a subrogated party against the Chinese manufacturer, supplier and their insurers. As a matter of fact, the monitor, again with Court approval, has sued retailers on behalf of consumers who purchased the faucets.

Accordingly, any amount paid by Home Depot or Reno Depot in satisfaction of such claims could not in turn be claimed from the aforementioned Released Parties. [ 4 ] After determining that the CCAA structure was not being improperly applied, the judge held that the settlement offer was in the interest of the parties, being the product of a fair process.

He noted the approval of the creditors’ committee comprised of insurers representing 73% of the outstanding claims in value and 83% in number. [ 5 ] In order to assuage the concerns of the Applicants over the deprivation of their subrogation rights and recourses against the Released Parties, a clause was added to the effect that the liability, for example of Rona, in any proceedings arising out of the faulty faucets, would be reduced by the amount of the aforementioned settlement allocated to that particular consumer claim [1] and an additional amount which Rona was able to demonstrate as recoverable from the Chinese manufacturer or supplier had the settlement not been entered into.

[ 6 ] After hearing the parties, the judge characterized these clauses as follows: … Put simply, if the non-settling party’s complaint is that a settling party got off too lightly, it is up to the non-settling party to demonstrate that the Monitor gave up too much under the settlement agreement. [ 7 ] He also found that the clause in question was consistent with

Article 1531 C.C.Q. dealing with the deprivation of rights of subrogation of solidary debtors.

The judge added that though the aforementioned clause was not perfect, it, in effect, tipped the balance to allow the Court to approve the settlement and move the file closer to the proposal of an arrangement. [ 8 ] Leave to appeal in CCAA matters is to be granted sparingly [2] and only if the proposed appeal is not frivolous, is of importance for the file and the practice and would not unduly delay the progress of the matter. [3] [ 9 ] Even though approval by the CCAA judge of a settlement as reasonable constitutes the exercise of discretion requiring deference, the questions raised are not without interest; they are crucial in the file and may be of importance to the practice, particularly because the subject of releases and their effect on third parties, specifically the effect of global releases arising from partial (as opposed to global) settlements has not been entertained by this Court and the jurisprudence in the rest of Canada is not, arguably a closed book. [4] [ 10 ] However, and though the issues raised are not frivolous, I am informed that the settlement agreements have been signed and the funds released with the sanction of the Superior Court given the order of provisional execution in the judgment.

The judge’s orders of June 20, 2018, in this regard, signed following the judgment, are not the object of an appeal or motion for leave to appeal. As such, the releases granted are effective and cannot be undone. Consequently, the appeal has become moot.

The case law is clear that the Court should not, as a general rule, adjudicate a matter that is clearly moot so that I should refuse leave. [5] I fail to see how entertaining an appeal, even on questions that might be of interest, in order to second-guess the exercise of the judge’s discretion when the outcome is moot, would be in the interest of justice. [ 11 ] The judgment a quo expresses no reasons for granting provisional execution.

I understand that the offer of settlement that the monitor wished to accept was made subject to a deadline but I am not aware what proof was made in this regard nor as I said, does the judge state why he granted provisional execution. [ 12 ] The new Code of Civil Procedure provides that it can be granted where “a serious or irreparable injury” would be caused to a party by the bringing of the appeal (Article 661 C.C.P. ).

Moreover, the case law is consistent that the granting of provisional execution should be supported by reasons [6] and that the absence of reasons is in itself a ground of appeal as well as a weakness in the judgment which may justify a suspension of the order of provisional execution. [7] However, in this case, because execution has already been completed, any such order would be moot. [ 13 ] In an apparent attempt to overcome the mootness argument, Rona Depot and Home Depot have moved for orders to suspend the provisional execution and for safeguard orders to enjoin the monitor from completing the transaction.

In such regard, they invoke wording in the settlement agreements stipulating that the transaction would not be finalized until the expiry of the appeal periods and final disposition of any appeals. They argue that since the monies paid by the Released Parties (less professional fees) are still held in trust by lawyers, then the finalization of the deal could not occur. [ 14 ] It is confirmed to me that all of the settlements were finalized with the judge’s approval. The releases have been delivered.

That monies are held by lawyers or the monitor for an eventual settlement does not change the mootness of the propose appeal. The releases given with the CCAA judge’s approval cannot be revoked. The execution is complete; there remains nothing for this judge to suspend. The appeal cannot become the equivalent of an action to resiliate or annul the settlement agreements. [ 15 ] The foregoing is sufficient to dispose of the motions presented by Rona and Home Depot for leave and to suspend provisional execution. [ 16 ] The motion for leave of Lloyd’s is somewhat different in that it adds an additional ground.

Lloyd’s was one of the insurers of the Chinese supplier and/or manufacturer and was initially contemplated to be a Released Party. It complains that by not completing the transaction with it, the monitor has not acted properly. This is not, in my view, even if eventually born out on the facts, a matter for leave; no issue important for the practice is raised. Moreover, whatever be the merit of the point, it too is moot given the completion of the settlement transaction. [ 17 ] Accordingly, each of the motions will be dismissed but without legal costs.

FOR ALL THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 18 ] DISMISSES the following motions: 1) Requête pour permission d'appeler de Rona inc. in the file 500-09-027630-185; 2) Deuxième requête pour ordonnance de sauvegarde et suspension de l'exécution provisoire in the file 500-09-027630-185; 3) Demande de l'appelant Lloyd's pour permission d'appeler in the file 500-09-027662-188; 4) Application for leave to appeal from a judgment rendered in the course of a proceeding of Home Depot of Canada inc. in the file 500- 09-027660-182; 5) Application for a safeguard order and to waive the provisional execution in the file 500-09-027660-182;

[ 19 ] THE WHOLE without legal costs. MARK SCHRAGER, J.C.A. [6] Articles 660-661 C.C.P. in fine Gestion Denis Chesnel inc. v. Syndicat des copropriétaires du Domaine de l'Éden Phase 1 , 2015 QCCA 292 (Schrager, J.A.) [ Gestion Denis Chesnel ] .