2016 QCCA 583, 2016 QCCA 583

Metcap Living Management Inc. c. Dépanneur Diane inc. 2016 QCCA 583 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-025994-161 (500-17-092288-169) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: April 6, 2016 THE HONOURABLE geneviève marcotte, J.A. PETITIONERS ATTORNEY metcap living management inc. place dorchester ari holdings inc. Mtre james woods ( Lapointe Rosenstein Marchand Melançon, s.e.n.c.r.

l) RESPONDENTS ATTORNEY dépanneur diane inc. ewa winiarska Mtre andrew wallace bird Mtre steven korda ( Korda & Associé

s) DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal an interlocutory judgment and to stay the interlocutory injunction rendered on March 29, 2016 by the Honourable Guylène Beaugé of the Superior Court, district of Montreal (Art. 31, paragraph 2, 357 and 514, paragraph 2 C.C.P. )

Clerk: Mihary Andrianaivo Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING 9:46 Start of the hearing. Discussion between the judge and the parties. 9:50 Submissions by Mtre Woods applying for postponement of today’s hearing. 10:06 Submissions by Mtre Bird as regards the application for postponement. 10:10 BY THE JUDGE: Ruling on the oral application for postponement – see page 3. 10:11 Submissions by Mtre Woods in connection to the Application for leave to appeal. 10:44 Submissions by Mtre Bird relating to the Application for leave to appeal. 10:59 Recess. 11:19 Resumption of the hearing.

BY THE JUDGE: The judgment will be rendered on April 7, 2016, at 9:25 a.m. The attorneys are not required to attend and the judgment will be emailed to the parties. Conclusion of the hearing.

Mihary Andrianaivo Clerk BY THE JUDGE JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Given the verbal request for postponement presented by the Applicants; [ 2 ] Given that the Respondents contest the postponement on the basis that its reasons are unfounded and contrary to the rules of proportionality; [ 3 ] Given that the Applicants had the opportunity to choose their date of presentation for their Application and are seeking its postponement at the very last minute for reasons that appear dilatory as they claim to want to re-open the evidence which was submitted in first instance on matters that did not form the basis of the judgment under attack and bear no relevance to the appeal; FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 4 ] DENIES the postponement. geneviève marcotte, J.A.