COURT OF APPEAL

CANADA

PROVINCE OF QUEBEC

REGISTRY OF MONTREAL

[1]          On June 28, 2011, the Superior Court, district de Montréal (Mr. Justice Paul Mayer), rendered the following judgment :

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT:

[245]    GRANTS the Requête introductive d'instance ré-amendée of the Plaintiff in part;

[246]    ACKNOWLEDGES the Defendants' discontinuance of their counterclaim, WITH COSTS against the Defendants;

[247]    ORDERS the resiliation of the Lease as of June 30, 2007;

[248]    CONDEMNS 3311066 Canada inc. and Vincenzo Barrasso, solidarily, to pay the Plaintiff the sum of $273,450 to compensate him for lost profits, the whole with interest at the legal rate, plus the additional indemnity provided for pursuant to Article 1619 C.C.Q. as of June 5, 2007;

[249]    CONDEMNS 3311066 Canada Inc. and Vincenzo Barrasso, solidarily, to pay the Plaintiff the following:

            $25,000 of punitive damages; and

            $70,020.33 for extrajudicial fees;

            the whole with interest at the legal rate, plus the additional indemnity provided for pursuant to Article 1619 C.C.Q. as of the date of this judgment;

[250]    ORDERS the provisional execution of the sum of $275,000 awarded herein notwithstanding appeal pursuant to Article 547 C.C.P.;

[251]    WITH COSTS against the Defendants.

[2]          The petitioners have appealed this judgment, by way of inscription, and they now seek the suspension of the order for provisional execution, pursuant to article 550 C.C.P.

[3]          Their motion shall be dismissed.

[4]          The conditions for the suspension of the provisional execution of a judgment are well known. Such suspension will be granted when there are major and apparent weaknesses in the judgment appealed from, and when provisional execution is of such a nature as to cause great or irreparable harm to the requesting party, with due consideration to the balance of inconvenience[1]. By exception, in some circumstances, the possibility of an irreparable and disproportionate harm, which would entirely neutralize the appeal, may, in and of itself, justify the suspension of  provisional execution[2].

[5]          The petitioners' motion does not fulfill these conditions. Although the inscription in appeal is 30 pages long and states numerous grounds of appeal, some of which are reiterated forcefully in the motion, it is impossible to conclude that there are major and flagrant weaknesses in the judgment, which is very detailed and carefully reasoned. Some of the judge's statements may, perhaps, merit some further examination by this Court, but that is not sufficient for the purposes of suspending provisional execution.

[6]          Neither have the petitioners established that provisional execution will cause them irreparable harm or that it would neutralize their appeal.

[7]          The trial judge, who is vested with a considerable discretionary power in these matters, under art. 547 , second para., C.C.P., convincingly explained his decision to order provisional execution and his reasons are in accordance with the judgment of our Court in Lebeuf c. Groupe S.N.C.-Lavalin inc., [1995] R.D.J. 366 (C.A.), and the applicable caselaw.

[8]          For these reasons, the motion IS DISMISSED, with costs.