Facebook Twitter LinkedIn YouTube Nous joindre | English

Décision

Les décisions diffusées proviennent de tribunaux ou d'organismes indépendants de SOQUIJ et pourraient ne pas être accessibles aux personnes handicapées qui utilisent des technologies d'adaptation. Visitez la page Accessibilité pour en savoir plus.
Copier l'url dans le presse-papier
Le lien a été copié dans le presse-papier
COUR D'APPEL

Rhythm Properties Inc. c. 9035-0349 Québec inc.

2012 QCCA 774

 

COURT OF APPEAL

 

CANADA

PROVINCE OF QUEBEC

REGISTRY OF MONTREAL

 

No:

500-09-022520-126

 

(500-17-068409-112)

 

 

MINUTES OF THE HEARING

 

 

DATE:

April 25, 2012

 

 

THE HONOURABLE ALLAN R. HILTON, J.A.

 

PETITIONER

ATTORNEY

RHYTHM PROPERTIES INC.

Mtre Donald Michelin

STEIN & STEIN

 

 

 

RESPONDENTS

ATTORNEY

9035-0349 QUÉBEC INC.

 

WATSON POITEVIN TURCOT PRÉVOST

Mtre Stéphane Cléroux

ARNAULT THIBAULT CLÉROUX

 

 

 

 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT RENDERED ON FEBRUARY 23, 2012 BY THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE AUCLAIR OF THE SUPERIOR COURT DISTRICT OF MONTREAL

 

 

Clerk:  Annick Nguyen

Court Room:  RC-18

 


 

 

HEARING

 

 

10:23  Commencement of the hearing.

Submission by Mtre Michelin.

10:37  Submission by Mtre Cléroux.

10:43  Reply by Mtre Michelin.

10:45  Suspension.

10:52  Resumption of the hearing.

BY THE JUDGE.

Judgment - See page 3.

 

 

Annick Nguyen

Clerk

 


 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

[1]   The applicant seeks leave to appeal a judgment of the Superior Court that granted a motion to dismiss presented pursuant to article 54.1 C.C.P. The motion to dismiss was taken in the name of one defendant, the notarial firm of Watson, Poitevin, Turcot, Prévost, in an action that also impleads 9035-0349 Quebec Inc as a co-defendant. The allegations in the applicant's pleadings make it clear that the latter defendant is the management company of the notarial firm.

[2]   The action in the Superior Court is undertaken by the lessor of premises in which the notarial firm carries on its practice. While the management company is the named lessee on the lease with the applicant, it has sub-leased the premises to the notarial firm.

[3]   The claim against the defendants arises out of a dispute with respect to rent owing under the lease. The applicant has impleaded the notarial firm, despite its not being the lessee, on the basis that the management company is in effect the "prête-nom" and thus the mandatary of the notarial firm, thus making the latter a solidary debtor. It is further alleged that the management company is an empty shell whose capacity to pay the rent is entirely dependent on funds that the notarial firm provides it.

[4]   The motion to dismiss before the Superior Court judge proceeded on the basis of the proceedings and exhibits, as well as the transcript of an examination on discovery of two representatives of the applicant. The applicant claims that the judgment dismisses its claim against the notarial firm prematurely, without it having the opportunity to lead evidence to establish its liability.

[5]   The case law under article 54.1 C.C.P. continues to be in a state of evolution given its relatively recent adoption by the legislature. Without commenting on whether or not I consider the judgment of the Superior Court to be well-founded, I believe this case to be an appropriate one for the Court of Appeal to determine whether the applicant should have been entitled to take its case to trial against the notarial firm, especially in light of the fact that it will in any event proceed against the management company. I note as well that both defendants in the Superior Court are represented by the same counsel.

FOR THESE REASONS:

[6]   The motion for leave to appeal is granted, with costs to follow the outcome of the appeal, and the file is deferred to the Master of the Rolls for the establishment of a timetable and a date for hearing.

 

 

 

 

ALLAN R. HILTON, J.A.

 

 

AVIS :
Le lecteur doit s'assurer que les décisions consultées sont finales et sans appel; la consultation du plumitif s'avère une précaution utile.

© Société québécoise d'information juridique (SOQUIJ) - Tous droits réservés  |  SOQUIJ est une société qui relève du ministre de la Justice du Québec