2023 QCCA 638, 2023 QCCA 638

Sigounis c. Sigounis 2023 QCCA 638 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-030512-230 ( 500-11-052150-170 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: May 12, 2023 THE HONOURABLE CHRISTINE BAUDOUIN, J.A. APPLICANT COUNSEL ARGYRO SIGOUNIS Mtre DOMINIQUE ZAURRINI Mtre LÉO DI BATTISTA Mtre RACHEL MUZAIC ( Zaurrini avocats ) Absents RESPONDENTS COUNSEL DIMITRIOS (JIMMY) SIGOUNIS Mtre LOUIS GEORGES BRUNET ( Gagnon, Brunet & Kilani ) Absent ELENI MAKRIDIS Mtre ROBERT PANCER ( Phillips Friedman Kotler ) Absent IMPLEADED PARTIES

AMALIA SIGOUNIS 114753 CANADA INC. 114754 CANADA INC. 136585 CANADA INC. CHENOY DELICATESSEN & STEAK HOUSE

(1976) LTD CHENOY FOOD METWORK INC. N.K.D.S. CONSULTANTS & INVESTMENTS INC. ABSENT AND UNREPRESENTED DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment rendered in the course of the proceeding on March 10, 2023, by the Honourable Michel A. Pinsonnault of the Superior Court, District of Montreal. Clerk at the hearing : Chloé Côté-Sauvagea u Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING Continuation of the hearing held on May 11, 2023. Counsel were excused from appearing in Court. BY THE JUDGE: Judgment – see page 3.

Chloé Côté-Sauvagea, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] I am seized with an application for leave to appeal a judgment rendered on March 20, 2023 by the Superior Court (the Honourable Michel Pinsonneault) dismissing the Appelant Argyro Sigounis’s motion, to disqualify lawyer of Respondent – Defendant in continuance of suit, Eleni Makridis. [ 2 ] The parties are family members involved in a bitter dispute regarding the future of the family-owned impleaded corporations.

The Superior Court has rendered many decisions, interlocutory and on the merits, since the Respondent – Plaintiff, Dimitrios Sigounis, filed an oppression remedy application in 2017. [ 3 ] After the Superior Court rendered a judgment on the merits on March 18, 2022, ordering the dissolution and liquidation of the family-owned corporations, this Court granted the Appellant’s motion to suspend the provisional execution of said judgment pending appeal, with the exception of a conclusion regarding continued case management to address the next steps to be taken with regards to the operation of the business pending the appeal, as may be appropriate. [ 4 ] On July 4, 2022, the Appellant filed a motion in Superior Court to disqualify counsel for the Defendant in Continuance of Suit, Mtre Robert Pancer, who has been representing his client for more than two years in this litigation.

In dismissing the Appellant’s motion for disqualification, the judge clearly summarized the grounds alleged in support of that motion:

[58] Argyro’s counsel expressed the view that by representing DICS Eleni in her capacity as Liquidator and as Universal Legatee, Pancer placed himself in a conflict of interest situation that warranted his removal from this case. [59] Based on the arguments submitted by Argyro’s counsel, the Court fails to find any incidence of conflict of interest justifying the disqualification of DICS Eleni’s lawyer. [60] In fact, if the arguments of Argyro’s counsel—which are all legal in nature—justify the disqualification of Pancer, the Court also fails to see how any other lawyer could represent the interests of DICS Eleni in lieu of Pancer.

Any such lawyer would also find himself/herself in a conflict of interest situation should he/she adopt on behalf of DICS Eleni the same adversarial position vis-à-vis Argyro, the Transfer of the Shares in particular and the liquidation of the Chenoy Corporations. [61] All in all, Pancer is not in a conflict of interest situation based on a factual situation that is completely his own, his alleged conflict of interest stems from the legal position that he is asserting on behalf of DICS Eleni, a legal position that is bitterly contested by Argyro’s counsel. [62] Moreover, and again based on the arguments of Argyro’s counsel, how can Pancer be blamed for illegally acting in the defence of DICS Eleni’s interests with legal proceedings that were allowed for filing by two judgments that were never appealed?

How can Pancer be also acting illegally given that his client was also declared to have the sufficient interest to intervene in the present instance in her capacity as Liquidator and as Universal Legatee? [63] Argyro’s counsel may disagree with DICS Eleni’s legal position, but it won’t disappear with the disqualification of her lawyer. (Italics and underlining in the original; references omitted) [ 5 ] A judgment dismissing an application for a declaration of disqualification is a judgment rendered in the course of a proceeding, from which an appeal lies subject to the criteria of

article 31 C.C.P. , such that to succeed, the Appellant must show that the judgment decides part of the dispute or causes her prejudice that cannot be remedied by the final judgment. The Appellant must also satisfy me that the proposed appeal is in the interests of justice in that it raises an issue that merits the Court's attention, has a reasonable prospect of success and is consistent with the governing principles of civil procedure. I am also mindful that it is generally accepted that a judgment which deprives a party of counsel of his or her choice causes irreparable harm to that party within the meaning of

article 31 C.C.P . [ 6 ] Prior to her July 4, 2022 motion to disqualify counsel, the Appellant had not raised any objections to the fact that Mtre Pancer was representing the Respondent - Defendant in Continuance of Suit in her personal capacity as well as in her capacity as liquidator of the estate of her late husband, and the Appellant proceeded with a 13-day trial on the merits without raising this issue. [ 7 ] None of the many arguments raised by the Appellant convinces me that the interests of justice justify granting leave to appeal, more specifically since the Appellant and Respondent – Plaintiff have no status (as legatee or heir) in their father’s succession and since Respondent-Defendant in Continuance of Suit is the only particular and universal legatee as well as the liquidator of that succession.

As it stands before me, and contrary to the Appellant’s affirmation, I fail to see how this is a case where the liquidator is acting against the succession, thus justifying Mtre Pancer’s disqualification. Moreover, granting such an application at this stage would be contrary to the guiding principles of civil procedure in that it would allow an unnecessary multiplication of the already numerous proceedings in this case. Lastly, none of the criteria of

article 193 C.C.P. have been met, such that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success. FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 8 ] DISMISSES the Application for Leave to Appeal a Judgment Rendered in the Course of a Proceeding , with costs. CHRISTINE BAUDOUIN, J.A.