2021 QCCA 1223, 2021 QCCA 1223

9415-9571 Québec inc. c. Loblaw Companies Limited 2021 QCCA 1223 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL N o : 500-09-029516-218 ( 500-17-115532-213 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: August 3, 2021 THE HONOURABLE FRÉDÉRIC BACHAND, J.A. APPLICANT COUNSEL 9415-9571 QUÉBEC INC. Me ROBERT PANCER ( Phillips Friedman Kotler ) By conference call RESPONDENT COUNSEL LOBLAW COMPANIES LIMITED shoppers drug mart inc.

Me KARINE FAHMY ( Borden Ladner Gervais ) By conference call DESCRIPTION : Application for leave to appeal from a judgment rendered in the course of a proceeding on April 20, 2021, by the Honourable Bernard Synnott of the Superior Court, District of Montreal (Articles 31, 32 and 351 and following C.C.P. ) . Clerk at the hearing: Paola Garcia Rosario Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING 11:07 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. 11:09 Submissions by Mtre Pancer. 11:25 Submissions by Mtre Fahmy. 11:32 Reply by Mtre Pancer. 11:34 BY THE JUDGE: Judgment – see page 3. 11:35 Conclusion of the hearing.

Paola Garcia Rosario, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The applicant seeks leave to appeal from a judgment dismissing its request for a case management measure ordering the respondents to state their grounds of defence within five days. * * * [ 2 ] The case began last February, when the applicant sued the respondent primarily in relation to outstanding purchase orders in the amount of $5.7 million. The transactions at issue were made pursuant to a supply agreement signed by the parties in April 2020. [ 3 ] Shortly after the respondents’ lawyers filed an answer, the applicant forwarded a proposed case protocol.

The respondents replied by indicating that they intended to challenge the Superior Court’s jurisdiction and that they would state their grounds of defence within 30 days of a judgment on their declinatory exception. They added that “[t]he outcome of the Declinatory exception might have some impacts [sic] on the applicable law and therefore Defendants’ means of defence”. [1] [ 4 ] A few days later, the applicant filed a notice of case management seeking an order directing the respondents to state their grounds of defence within five days.

The respondents subsequently filed an application seeking the referral of the case to arbitration in Ontario or, alternatively, to the courts of Ontario. That application was based on a dispute resolution clause found in the April 2020 supply agreement. The applicant disputes the validity of that clause. [ 5 ] The applicant argued before the first-instance judge that the Code of Civil Procedure requires the respondents to state their grounds of defence in the case protocol.

It also claimed that it needed this information to determine whether a dispute existed between the parties within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the April 2020 supply agreement. [ 6 ] The judge dismissed the applicant’s request for the following reasons: Considérant l’action intentée par un fournisseur des défenderesses pour un montant de près 5 900 000,00$; Considérant que dès le début des procédures, les défenderesses demandent au Tribunal de décliner juridiction et de renvoyer les parties à l’arbitrage conformément à l’article 19 du contrat; Considérant que l’article 19 est une clause compromissoire; Considérant que malgré la demande de renvoi à l’arbitrage, la demanderesse insiste pour que les défenderesses fassent valoir sans délai leurs moyens de défense à l’action instituée contre elles; Considérant que la demanderesse soutient que l’énoncé de ces moyens de défense est nécessaire pour déterminer s’il existe un différend entre les parties; Considérant que la demanderesse soutient qu’elle ne sait pas si l’action instituée contre la défenderesse constitue un différend au sens du contrat; Considérant que cet argument semble frivole à sa face même; Considérant que les défenderesses n’ont pas à débuter leur contestation tant et aussi longtemps que le Tribunal n’aura pas statué sur la demande de renvoi à l’arbitrage; Considérant notamment l’arrêt Zodiac de la Cour suprême; * * * [ 7 ] The applicant contends that the first-instance judge erred when he refused to order the respondents to state their grounds of defence prior to a hearing on the declinatory exception.

The applicant further argues that the judge ruled ultra petita when he held that the dispute resolution clause found in the April 2020 supply agreement constituted a complete undertaking to arbitrate. [ 8 ] On that last point, the applicant reads too much into the judge’s reasons. It is clear that, when considered in context, the statement to the effect that “ l’article 19 est une clause compromissoire ” does not amount to a final determination regarding the clause’s validity or impact on the present proceeding.

As the respondents conceded during the hearing on the application for leave to appeal, the judge said nothing that could prejudice the applicant’s position as to the clause’s validity or impact.

[ 9 ] As for the judge’s refusal to direct the respondents to state their grounds of defence at this juncture, I agree with the respondents that it amounts to an order on a “[c]ase management measur[e] relating to the conduct of a proceeding/ mesur[e] de gestion relativ[e] au déroulement de l’instance ” within the meaning of

article 32 C.C.P. The key question, therefore, is whether it “appears unreasonable in light of the guiding principles of procedure/ p araît déraisonnable au regard des principes directeurs de la procédure ” . [ 10 ] In my opinion, it does not. Although I would not go so far as to characterize the applicant’s notice for case management as frivolous on its face, I see no basis to conclude, on the record as it currently stands, that the disclosure of the respondents’ grounds of defence could somehow be essential to uphold the applicant’s fundamental right to be heard (article 17, 1 st para.

C.C.P. ) in relation to the declinatory exception. I also fail to see how the impugned case management order could be characterized as unreasonable in light of the other guiding principles of procedure. FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 11 ] DISMISSES the application for leave to appeal, with costs. FRÉDÉRIC BACHAND, J.A.