R v. TORONTO-DOMINION BANK, 2019 QCCA 293

Canadian MSB Association c. Toronto-Dominion Bank 2019 QCCA 293 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-027780-188 (500-17-074476-121) DATE: FEBRUARY 20, 2019 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE ALLAN R. HILTON, J.A. CANADIAN MSB ASSOCIATION PETITIONER v. TORONTO-DOMINION BANK APPELLANT – defendant and HOSSEIN POURSHAFIEY 4291921 CANADA INC. RESPONDENTS – plaintiffs JUDGMENT [ 1 ] I have before me an application to intervene in the appeal of the Toronto-Dominion Bank against the two respondents arising out of a judgment of the Superior Court rendered on July 20, 2018 by the Hon. Mr.

Justice Gregory Moore that granted their claim in damages against the appellant following its unexplained termination of the their bank accounts. Since the business of the respondents consisted largely in assisting its clients in the transfer of money to and from family members in Iran, [1] they alleged and the trial judge found that the appellant’s conduct “effectively terminated its business”. [ 2 ] The applicant describes its statement of purpose as including “the promotion of the interests and rights of those engaged in money service businesses and incidental businesses”.

While recognizing that the judgment to intervene on the merits will focus on the facts related to the termination of a single money service business, it nevertheless alleges that the appeal raises issues of public interest and that this Court’s judgment potentially will have an impact elsewhere in Canada. [ 3 ] I am not persuaded that the proposed intervention is desirable or necessary.

I have the distinct impression that the applicant looks to turn what is a relatively uncomplicated matter into a reference on systemic banking practices dealing with the subject matter of the appeal. [ 4 ] Moreover, as Gascon, J.A., as he then was, observed when sitting as a judge in chambers in dismissing an application to intervene, “[…] in private matters, judges of this Court have stressed the importance of the intervening party being able to show that the parties to the proceedings will not properly and thoroughly consider the issues at stake.” [2] [ 5 ] No such showing has been made in this case.

Indeed, the contrary would be a more accurate statement of the competence of counsel and the capacity of their clients to assist the Court in the adjudication of the appeal. FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED : [ 6 ] DISMISSES the Intervenor’s application for permission to intervene, with legal costs. ALLAN R. HILTON, J.A. Mtre Marc Lemieux LEMIEUX SERVICES JURIDIQUES For petitioner Mtre François Giroux Mtre SÉBASTIEN CUSSON

McCARTHY TÉTRAULT For appellant Mtre Alan M. Stein For respondents Date of hearing: February 13, 2019