2021 QCCQ 8236, 2021 QCCQ 8236

Richard A Friedman Attorneys Corporations Inc. c. Ramzi 2021 QCCQ 8236COURT OF QUEBEC CANADAPROVINCE OF QUEBECDISTRICT OF montreal Civil DivisionNo: 500-22-266929-218 DATE: August 17, 2021______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONORABLECAtherine Pilon J.C.Q.______________________________________________________________________ RICHARD A FRIEDMAN ATTORNEYS CORPRORATIONS INC.Plaintiffv.

DANIEL RAMZIDefendant______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT RENDERED ON THE BENCH______________________________________________________________________ [1] The Plaintiff has brought a claim against the Defendant for unpaid legal fees. [2] In the Answer to summons, the Defendant gave an address which the Plaintiff feels is not his permanent address. The Defendantgave a phone number where the Plaintiff’s attorney alleges that he has difficulty reaching him.

The Answer to summons also indicates afax number, the same as the telephone number, but it is requested to call ahead before sending a document. [3] The Plaintiff considers the Answer to summons irregular, in particular because the address would be in accurate, and that it is notpossible to communicate with the Defendant at his phone number. [4] At the beginning of the hearing, the Defendant raised that undersigned should recuse herself by reason of a conflict of interest.The Defendant testified that a recusation was necessary because the undersigned was a partner at the law firm Dentons when he was aclient from 2011 to 2013. [5] Although the Defendant has admitted that the undersigned never worked as a lawyer on his files, he argues that pursuant to theSupreme Court judgment in MacDonald Estate v.

Martin, ( (SCC), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1235), the privileged information heshared with other firm lawyers was known to the undersigned by inference. [6] The Defendant feels that this could be detrimental to him since the matter handled by Dentons at the time was taken over by thePlaintiffs and is specifically the object of their unpaid fees. [7] The principles laid out by the Supreme Court in MacDonald in respect of a presumption of knowledge of confidentialinformation is not irrefutable.

The Supreme Court states that it only operates a reversal of the burden of proof, and that the lawyer canadduce evidence that he or she did not have knowledge of the information shared by the client to other firm members. [8] This matter raises a somewhat different question given that the undersigned is no longer a lawyer. Nevertheless, she would liketo stress that while at Dentons, she never provided any advice to the Defendant, nor was she made aware of any confidential informationconcerning his matter.

As a matter of fact, she was not even aware of his existence as a client. [9] The MacDonald judgment does not support the Defendant’s position. [10] The Defendant further raises as a ground of partiality that the undersigned acted as an arbitrator in a Quebec Bar fee arbitrationin 2015 where other lawyers brought a claim against him for unpaid fees. The day before the hearing, he sent a fax to the undersignedrequesting a postponement as he felt that 9:30 am, the time set for the beginning of the hearing, was too early.

He also indicated that hewould request that the undersigned recuse herself for the reasons which he also raises now. [11] The postponement request was denied and the Defendant failed to be present at the hearing. In the absence of evidence insupport of his request for recusation, it was dismissed, and a judgment by default was rendered against him on the merits. [12] The Defendant is of the view that the undersigned was biased at the time because he called her directly after the decision wasrendered to ask her to cancel it. He blames her for not having canceled the decision. In his opinion, this shows bias.

As explained in thecurrent hearing, the undersigned did not have authority to cancel her decision, nor did she have the obligation to give him advice as towhat to do if he was displeased by it. This was not bias, but the reality of legal requirements. [13] As the undersigned also explained, the issues in the course of the Bar arbitration cannot be retried with this case.The sole

question is whether his retainer with Dentons from 2011 to 2013 and the arbitration proceedings raise serious reasons to question the undersigned’s impartiality. [ 14 ] The Court of Appeal in Rocheleau v. Union des producteurs agricoles , ( 2005 QCCA 666 CanLII, par. 4) reminds us that a reasonable fear of partiality should not be based on a subjective perception of reality or an excessive emotional concern. The fear should emanate from a reasonable individual based on the facts, and not be guided by emotion. [ 15 ] The Court of Appeal further reminds us in Syndicat des cols bleus regroupés de Montréal,

section locale 301 v .

Pointe-Claire (Ville de), ( 2011 QCCA 1000 CanLII, par. 78 and 79) that one of the factors to be taken into account when assessing a recusation is the time that has elapsed since the potential conflict. [ 16 ] In this case, it has been close to ten years since the Defendant was a client at the undersigned’s former firm, in a context, as mentioned above, in which she had no knowledge of his matters. [ 17 ] Similarly, six years have passed since she acted as an arbitrator in a case involving the Defendant as a party. [ 18 ] In any event, having appeared before the same judge or arbitrator before, notwithstanding the outcome, does not constitute a reasonable ground for a recusation as was also decided in Rocheleau (par. 9 ). [ 19 ] In light of the above, the Defendant has not raised serious reasons to question the undersigned’s impartiality.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : [ 20 ] DISMISSES the Defendant’s oral application for recusation ; [ 21 ] THE WHOLE with costs. ______________________________ Catherine Pilon, J.C.Q. Me Richard Friedman BELL RUDICK & FRIEDMAN Attorneys for the Defendant Daniel Ramzi Defendant For himself Hearing date: August 17, 2021