An Appeal on the Facts Disguised as a Question of Law

By Sarah D. Pinsonnault In Gestion 1050 de la Montagnec. Gestion Furst inc., 2014 QCCA2059, the Petitioners sought an order staying the execution of a Court ofAppeal judgment pending appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada pursuant toarticle 522.1 C.C.P and section 65.1(2) of the Supreme Court Act. The criteria to be met forsuch an order are the following: (1) the existence of a serious question to bedecided on appeal by the Supreme Court, (2) the applicant for the stay willsuffer irreparable harm if the stay is refused, and (3) the balance ofinconvenience between the parties favours the granting of the stay. The learnedappeal judge sitting alone focused his analysis mainly on the first criterion andconcluded that there was « no serious question of law » being raised. In fact, thequestions submitted by the Petitioners were considered to be ill-disguisedattempts to have an issue of fact retried as a question of principle…. Lire la suite

Bell Media Ordered to Suspend the Broadcast of a Television Episode

By Sarah D. Pinsonnault In Québec (Curateur public) c. BellMedia inc., 2014 QCCS 4919, the Court was required to balance a series of fundamentalrights: first, an individual’s inherent right to privacy and security, andsecond, the freedom of expression and the public’s right to information. Thisdebate centered on an episode Bell Media was scheduled to broadcast as part ofits television series called “Un tueur siproche”. The episode in question was about an individual, represented bythe Public Curator in this matter, who was found not criminally responsible forthe murder of his mother and two nieces. The Public Curator, being concerned about,inter alia, the potential damaging impact this episode could have on therehabilitation of the individual it represented, presented a motion forprovisional injunction to prevent this broadcast. The presiding judge, JusticeLouis J. Gouin, J.C.S., found that the balance of inconvenience favoured the CuratorPublic, for and in the name of the individual it represented,… Lire la suite

Dans le cadre de procédures en injonction interlocutoire, il peut être nécessaire de considérer les inconvénients qui seront causés à de tierces parties

par Karim Renno On ne le mentionnera jamais assez souvent, hormis les critères bien connus pour l’émission d’une ordonnance d’injonction interlocutoire (qu’elle soit provisoire ou non), le tribunal conserve toujours le pouvoir discrétionnaire de ne pas émettre l’ordonnance recherchée. C’est ainsi que dans l’affaire Dorval c. Marcotte (2011 QCCS 4369), l’Honorable juge Chantal Corriveau indique qu’il est important de considérer la balance des inconvénients non seulement pour les parties demanderesses et défenderesses, mais également pour toute autre tierce partie qui pourrait être affectée. Les faits de l’affaire sont complexes, mais retenons pour nos fins que les Demandeurs, lesquels contrôlent essentiellement 51% des actions de différentes compagnies (principalement des restaurants) cherchent à racheter par force les 49% détenus par les Défendeurs suite à ce que les Demandeurs allèguent être des actes inappropriés qui ont détruit le lien de confiance. Les Défendeurs contestent vigoureusement les procédures. Par voie d’ordonnance d’injonction interlocutoire provisoire,… Lire la suite