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

Alertpay Incorporated c. Gilder

2012 QCCA 938

 

COURT OF APPEAL

 

CANADA

PROVINCE OF QUEBEC

REGISTRY OF MONTREAL

 

No:

500-09-022610-125

 

(500-17-063953-114)

 

 

MINUTES OF THE HEARING

 

 

DATE:

May 16, 2012

 

 

THE HONOURABLE CLÉMENT GASCON, J.A.

 

PETITIONER

ATTORNEY

ALERTPAY INCORPORATED

Me Harold W. Ashenmil

 

 

 

RESPONDENTS

ATTORNEY

TERRY GILDER

 

THEMCO EKF

Me Stephen Ashkenazy

HAMILTON COOPER ASHKENAZY

 

 

 

 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT RENDERED ON MARCH 29, 2012, BY THE HONOURABLE RICHARD MONGEAU OF THE SUPERIOR COURT IN THE DISTRICT OF MONTREAL

 

 

Clerk: Annick Nguyen

Court Room:  RC.18

 


 

 

HEARING

 

 

9:32  Commencement of the hearing.

Submission by Mtre Ashenmil.

9:40  Submission by Mtre Ashkenazy.

10:05  Reply by Mtre Ashenmil.

10:15  Suspension.

10:27  Resumption of the hearing.

BY THE JUDGE.

Judgment - See page 3.

 

Annick Nguyen

Clerk

 


 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

[1]           Defendant seeks leave to appeal an interlocutory judgment rendered by Mongeau J. of the Superior Court on March 29, 2012.  This judgment issued a safeguard order pursuant to which Defendant was ordered to remit to Mtre Ashenmil, its Counsel, "[…] monies presently in the Account referred in Exhibit DG-2 so that the (sic) may be deposited in a separate interest bearing account with signing authority held jointly by parties's attorneys and with the money only being paid upon settlement or final judgment".

[2]           In my opinion, Defendant fails to establish that this is a judgment that falls within the parameters of Article 29 (1) C.C.P.  It does not decide in part the issues, it does not unnecessarily delay the trial of the case, and it does not order the doing of anything which cannot be remedied by the final judgment.

[3]           In essence, the safeguard order issued by Mongeau J. merely places in the hands of Counsel in trust money allegedly held in a specific account pending final settlement or final judgment.

[4]           As such, it appears obvious that the order is not definitive and can be remedied, if need be, by the final judgment.  It is nothing more than a cautionary measure aimed at safeguarding the rights of the parties to the amount at issue.

[5]           The complaints raised by Defendant with regard to the alleged vagueness or uncertainty of the order issued is not a valid ground to obtain leave to appeal.  If the order is unclear, cannot be executed as such or needs to be clarified, this is a matter that should be raised at the trial judge level, not through a motion for leave to appeal.

[6]           As a result, I do not need to address the contradictions in Defendant's position argued before me by Plaintiff's Counsel.  These would be relevant, at best, to the interest of justice criteria of Article 511 C.C.P.; however, this criteria does not come into play when an Article 29 C.C.P. situation has not been established first.

[7]           FOR THESE REASONS, the Motion for permission to appeal is DISMISSED, with costs.

 

 

 

 

 

CLÉMENT GASCON, 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