2019 QCCA 1213, 2019 QCCA 1213

Arrangement relatif à Szeptynska 2019 QCCA 1213 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-027808-187 (500-11-054762-188) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: July 4, 2019 THE HONOURABLE MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. IN THE MATTER OF THE BANKRUPTCY OF RAJA SZEPTYNSKA: PETITIONER COUNSEL raja szeptynska (ALIAS RITA RUBIN) m tre simon grant Mtre LYNE GUILBAULT ( Gilbert Séguin Guilbault ) RESPONDENTS COUNSEL jorge ferreira loriana fiori Mtre Guy R. Sirois IMPLEADED PARTIES the superintendant of bankruptcy ronald gagnon dodick landau inc. Absent and unrepresented DESCRIPTION: Respondent’s Motion for security for costs (s. 364 C.C.P. ).

Clerk: Stephane Robinson Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING 9:30 Continuation of the hearing held on July 2 nd , 2019. Counsel is exempted from attending the hearing. BY THE JUDGE : JUDGMENT – SEE PAGE 3. (

s) Stephane Robinson Clerk BY THE JUDGE JUDGMENT [ 1 ] I am tasked with the Respondents’ motion seeking security to be filed by the Appellant. On September 11, 2018, the latter appealed the judgment of the Superior Court, District of Montreal (the Honourable Michel A. Pinsonnault) sitting in bankruptcy matters. The judge granted the Respondents’ petition and annulled the voluntary assignment of bankruptcy filed in Toronto by the Appellant.

The voluntary bankruptcy had been filed on the eve of the day when a petition in bankruptcy lodged by the Respondents against the Appellant was to be heard by the Superior Court sitting in bankruptcy matters in Montreal. [ 2 ] In annulling the Toronto assignment, the judge found that the Appellant was acting to avoid satisfying the civil judgment condemning her to pay the Respondents a $177,169.

The judge further found that the Toronto assignment was filed deceitfully in order to put further obstacles between the Appellant and her creditors and specifically to avoid the bankruptcy petition pending before the Superior Court in Montreal. [ 3 ] Before me, the application for security sets out a transfer of funds held at Scotia Bank in Montreal with the alleged purpose of putting the funds beyond the reach of the Respondents.

Respondents submit that the transfer was disclosed to the Toronto trustee. [ 4 ] It appears from the plumitif in first instance and paragraph 23 of the motion that a bankruptcy order was finally issued by the Superior Court sitting in Montreal on December 19, 2018. [ 5 ] The contestation of the Toronto voluntary assignment was essentially the Appellant’s manner of contesting the bankruptcy petition previously lodged against her in Montreal.

As such, the Appellant could be liable to post security ( s. 43(10) Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act ). [1] There is no reason why the same legal rationale should not apply in appeal ( s. 183(2.1) Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and

article 364 C.C.P. ). [ 6 ] Given the contestation of the bankruptcy proceedings and the behaviour described by the judge, the furnishing of security is appropriate. Moreover, the Appellant resides in Ontario which is further justification for the filing of security. [2] I appreciate Appellant’s submission that the motion should not be a segway to grant, in effect, a priority to Respondents not granted by the BIA . For that reason, the amount of security should be limited. I consider $5,000 adequate to be filed within 30 days.

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 7 ] GRANTS in part the Respondents’ motion for security (requête des intimés en date du 20 juin 2019 pour un cautionnement en appel); [ 8 ] ORDERS the Appellant to file security for the appeal in the amount of $5,000 on or before August 9, 2019, such security to be filed in the court record of the Superior Court 500-11-054762-188. [ 9 ] Legal costs on the motion to follow the outcome of the appeal.

MARK SCHRAGER, J.A.