2015 QCCA 254, 2015 QCCA 254

Vidanovic c. Iannuzzi 2015 QCCA 254 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-024991-150 (500-17-083004-146) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: February 9, 2015 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE allan r. hilton , J.A. marie-france bich , J.A. paul vézina , J.A. PETITIONER SAVA VIDANOVIC In person RESPONDENT COUNSEL Mtre. PIETRO IANNUZZI Mtre. LUC SÉGUIN (De Michele & Avocats)) DESCRIPTION : Motion for special leave to appeal from a judgment rendered on September 19, 2014 by the Honourable Madam Justice Marie-Anne Paquette of the Superior Court, District of Montreal Clerk: Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault

HEARING 10:26 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. 10:26 Submissions by Mr. Vidanovic 10:41 Submissions by Mtre Séguin. 10 h 45 By the Court : Judgment will be rendered on the minutes of the hearing later today. Robert Osadchuck Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The petitioner seeks leave to appeal beyond the 30-day delay (Art. 523 C.C.P .) from a judgment of the Superior Court, District of Montreal rendered on September 19, 2014 by the Honourable Madam Justice Marie-Anne Paquette that granted the respondent's exception to dismiss.

The judgment accordingly dismissed his claim in damages of over $700,000 against a lawyer in which he alleged the latter's negligence in the management of four court files. [ 2 ] The trial judge did so largely because she was of the view that the alleged negligence of the respondent was in respect of litigation mandates on behalf of a corporate entity of which Mr. Vidanovic was the sole shareholder, officer and director. The trial judge noted that the four mandates that gave rise to the claim she dismissed were all taken in the name of C.N.C.

Construction Inc. as plaintiff (Exhibits P-1, P-14, P-19 and P-21 in the Superior Court), and not Mr. Vidanovic. [ 3 ] In addition, the trial judge noted that in any event, three of the four claims against the respondent were prescribed, which is indeed the case. [ 4 ] Although the Court was provided with a copy of the motion introductory of suit in the present case, it was not provided with the introductory proceedings in any of the four litigation files on which the claim in damages was based.

That said, the Court must assume the trial judge correctly stated in her judgment that the plaintiff in each of the four cases was in fact C.N.C. Construction Inc. [ 5 ] In support of his motion, Mr. Vidanovic emphasizes that he personally suffered the damages alleged in the four cases; however, he cannot claim indirectly for damages arising out of the adverse adjudication or settlement of cases brought on behalf of his company.

The fact that this company may have been inactive during the relevant time does not change its status, nor does it give him a right to personally assert the claim against the respondent that Paquette, J. dismissed. [ 6 ] Although it is not determinative, Mr. Vidanovic did not allege why he was unable to inscribe in appeal within the 30-day delay from the judgment of the Superior Court, nor why this case would be of such a nature to warrant a hearing on the merits in this Court. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 7 ] DISMISSES the motion for leave to appeal, without costs in the circumstances.

ALLAN R. HILTON, J.A. MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. PAUL VÉZINA, J.A.