Being convinced of suffering an injustice does not discharge your obligation as a self-representing litigant

David Gelles, Student, McGill Law Student Sarah D. Pinsonnault, Lawyer, Larivière Meunier Introduction In response to the decision rendered in O’Connor v. Giancristofaro-Malobabic, 2018 QCCS 4099 (“Giancristofaro”), Mr. Werner Moosberger, a shareholder in MonRoi Inc., essentially asked the Superior Court to rule on four motions. In O’Connor c. Monroi Inc., 2019 QCCS 5320, Moosberger asked the Superior Court to: 1) quash the seizure of MonRoi’s patent; 2) rule on a claim for monetary compensation from Me. Daniel O’Connor; 3) revoke the judgment in Giancristofaro; and 4) appoint a different judge to rule on these motions. The judge dismissed all motions, finding that Moosberger did not have sufficient legal interest to seek these remedies, and further finding that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias on his part, towards Moosberger.Context In Giancristofaro, the judge ruled in favour of O’Connor, who was the beneficial owner of shares in the company MonRoi Inc.,… Lire la suite

The Mere Likelihood of Being Required to Testify in an Action is Insufficient to Warrant Being Impleaded as a Party to the Proceedings

By Sarah D. PinsonnaultThe forced intervention of a third party to an action is governed byarticle 216 C.C.P. which requires, interalia, that the presence of this party be necessary for “a complete solutionof the question involved in the action”. In IstoreInc. c. Paradies Shops, l.l.c.,2014 QCCS 5995, the Impleaded Party (“PeachMac”) succeeded in being removed asa party to the proceedings, as it was revealed that its presence was notnecessary to ensure a complete resolution of the dispute between the mainparties. The Court found that even if a representative of PeachMac would mostlikely be called to testify during the trial, this did not render its presencenecessary as a party to the action. Context The Plaintiff (“iStore”), a licenced Apple retailer looking to expandits business activities into the United States, entered into discussions with theDefendant (“Paradies”), who is also a retailer of these products but primarilyconducts its business in US airports. During… Lire la suite