Case information

Civil procedure — Appeals — Splitting of proceeding — Whether June 2023 amendment of art. 211 of Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR, c. C 25.01, removed Quebec Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal from judgment rendered at end of first stage of split proceeding — Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR, c. C 25.01, arts. 31 and 211.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicant, UBS Securities Canada Inc., is an international company that specializes in financial services for private companies. The respondents, Shan Ahdoot, Danier Ahdoot, Louiselle Lamarche Ahdoot, Eliane Ahdoot and CIDA Conseiller informatique David Ahdoot LLC, are former shareholders, directors and employees of a group of companies called “Hypertec”. Following the issuance of a court order in the course of an oppression action, the respondents called upon the services of the applicant to act as financial advisor in connection with a potential transaction. In March and April 2018, the parties signed an agreement similar to a contract for services and a compensation agreement. Further to the performance of the mandate conferred on it, the applicant commenced an action against the respondents for payment of the transaction fees that were allegedly owing to it under those two agreements. The respondents filed a cross application against the applicant particularly for contractual fault in the performance of the mandate conferred on it. In response, the applicant asked that that cross application be declared abusive. The Superior Court ordered the splitting of the proceeding such that the debate on liability would be heard prior to and separately from the hearing on the quantification of the damages claimed in the cross application. It dismissed the principal application and allowed the cross application, which it referred for a hearing on the quantification of damages. On April 19, 2024, the applicant filed, prior to the hearing on the quantification of damages on the cross application, an application de bene esse for leave to appeal from the first stage of the judgment under art. 31 para. 2 Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR, c. C 25.01 (C.C.P.). It asked the Court of Appeal to exercise its discretion to override the effects of art. 211 of the C.C.P. and thus obtain leave to appeal from the first stage judgment rendered in the course of a split proceeding. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application de bene esse for leave to appeal for absence of jurisdiction. The notice of appeal from judgment was declared premature.