Supreme Court of Canada | Cour Suprême Du Canada
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
File no. 37566 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (On appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec) BETWEEN: YVES BRUNETTE, ès qualités trustee of Fiducie Maynard 2004 APPLICANT (appellant /appellant in continuance of suit) and JEAN M. MAYNARD, ès qualités trustee of Fiducie Maynard 2004 APPLICANT (appellant in continuance of suit) - and - LEGAULT JOLY THIFFAULT, s.e.n.c.r.l. LJT FISCALITÉ INC. LJT CORPORATIF INC. LJT CONSEIL INC. LJT LITIGE INC. LJT IMMOBILIER INC. LEHOUX BOIVIN COMPTABLES AGRÉÉS, s.e.n.c. MARCEL CHAPUT FISCALISTE M.C. INC. RESPONDENTS (respondents) RESPONSE of LEHOUX BOIVIN COMPTABLES AGRÉÉS, S.E.N.C. (Rule 27 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada) Me Caroline Biron Guy Régimbald Me Neil Peden GOWLING WLG (Canada) LLP WOODS LLP Suite 2600 Suite 1700 160 Elgin Street 2000 McGill College Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 1C3 Montreal, Québec, H3A 3H3 Tel: 613-786-0197 Tel : 514 982-6628 (Me Biron) Fax: 613-563-9869 Tel : 514 982-4560 (Me Peden) [email protected] Fax : 514 284-2046 [email protected] [email protected] Ottawa Agent for Attorneys for the Attorneys for Respondent Respondent Lehoux Boivin, Comptables Lehoux Boivin, Comptables agréés, s.e.n.c. agréés, s.e.n.c. Me Doug Mitchell Me Frédérick Langlois Me Jean-Michel Boudreau DEVEAU, GAGNE, LEFEBVRE, Me François Goyer TREMBLAY & ASSOCIES IRVING MITCHELL KALICHMAN LLP Suite 8 Suite 1400, Place Alexis Nihon, Tower 2 867 Saint-Réné Boulevard West 3500 De Maisonneuve Boulevard West Gatineau, Québec J8T 7X6 Montreal, Québec H3Z 3C1 Tel : 819 243-2616 Tel : 514 935-4460 Fax : 819 243-2641 Fax : 514 935-2999 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Applicants Correspondents for Applicants Me François Beauchamp DE GRANDPRÉ CHAIT LLP Suite 2900 100 de la Gauchetière West Montreal, Québec, H3B 4W5 Tel : 514 878-3280 Fax : 514 878-5780 [email protected] Counsel for Respondent Lehoux Boivin, Comptables agréés, s.e.n.c. Me Jean-Pierre Sheppard Guy Régimbald Me Katherine Delage GOWLING WLG (Canada) LLP ROBINSON SHEPPARD SHAPIRO LLP Suite 2600 Tour de la Bourse 160 Elgin Street Suite 4600 Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 1C3 800 Square-Victoria Street Montreal, Québec, H4Z 1H6 Tel: 613-786-0197 Fax: 613-563-9869 Tel : 514 393-4013 (Me Sheppard) [email protected] Tel : 514 393-7476 (Me Delage) Fax : 514 878-1865 [email protected] [email protected] Ottawa Agent for Attorneys for the Respondents Attorneys for Respondents Legault Joly Thiffault, s.e.n.c.r.l. Legault Joly Thiffault, s.e.n.c.r.l. LJT Fiscalité Inc. LJT Fiscalité Inc. LJT Corporatif Inc. LJT Corporatif Inc. LJT Conseil Inc. LJT Conseil Inc. LJT Litige Inc. LJT Litige Inc. LJT Immobilier Inc. LJT Immobilier Inc. Me Pierre Bélanger Me Gabriel R. Massicotte BÉLANGER LONGTIN AVOCATS Suite 2125 1, Place Ville-Marie Montreal, Québec, H3B 2C6 Tel : 514 390-3200 (Me Bélanger) Tel : 514 390-3209 (Me Massicotte) Fax : 514 866-7294 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Respondent Marcel Chaput et Fiscaliste M.C. inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PART I – Concise Statement of Facts and Respondent’s Position with Respect to Alleged Issues of Public Importance ................................................................................................... 1 Concise statement of facts ......................................................................................... 2 Respondent’s position concerning alleged issues of public importance ....................................................................................................... 6 Direct damages in Quebec .......................................................................... 6 Contractual vs. extra-contractual faults ..................................................... 7 Holding professionals to account .............................................................. 8 Dismissing lawsuits before trial .................................................................. 8 PART II – Questions in Issue ................................................................................................... 9 PART III – Statement of Argument ........................................................................................ 10 Articles 55 and 165(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure ........................................................................................................ 10 Direct damages are an essential requirement ......................................... 11 PART IV – Costs .......................................................................................................................... 19 PART V – Orders Sought ......................................................................................................... 19 PART VI – Authorities ................................................................................................................ 20 PART V – Statutes ...................................................................................................................... 21 - 1 - Response of LEHOUX BOIVIN COMPTABLES AGRÉÉS, S.E.N.C. Overview and Facts PART I – CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THE RESPONDENT’S POSITION WITH RESPECT TO ALLEGED ISSUES OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 1. The application for leave to appeal does not raise a real issue of public importance of the nature that merits the intervention of this court. 2. The matter is inherently of a private nature, fact-specific, and concerns the exercise of the discretion of the civil courts to superintend their caseload. At a time when dockets are choked with proceedings, it is manifestly not in the public interest to restrict the ability of civil courts to dismiss proceedings before trial where appropriate, as in this case. 3. It is very telling that in their attempt to make out an issue of public importance, the applicants mischaracterize the facts and resort to straw man arguments, going so far as to frame the issue as follows: Effectivement, alors qu’un nombre croissant d’individus et de sociétés dépensent des sommes colossales pour obtenir l’avis de professionnels ultraspécialisés dans le but d’organiser leurs affaires selon des structures corporatives souvent complexes qui visent à gérer leur fardeau fiscal, les clients se retrouvent-ils sans recours lorsque les professionnels chargés d’élaborer de telles structures faillissent lamentablement à la tâche? 1 4. Leaving aside for the moment that it is entirely unproven and categorically denied by the respondents that they failed (lamentably or otherwise) at their tasks, and without commenting on whether the amounts charged by the respondents were “colossal” (particularly in light of the amount of work that was performed by them), the foregoing characterisation by the applicants utterly misrepresents the real issues in the present lawsuit—and indeed the 1 Para 6. of the memorandum of argument in the appellants’ application for leave to appeal (the “Application”), p. 31 - 2 - Response of LEHOUX BOIVIN COMPTABLES AGRÉÉS, S.E.N.C. Overview and Facts very basis upon which the lawsuit was rightfully dismissed: the applicants lacked standing because the recourse had been taken by the wrong party. Concise statement of facts 5. The facts necessary to understand the basis on which the case was properly dismissed, in first instance and on appeal, are as follows. 6. The present suit was commenced on or about May 20, 2011 by the applicant Jean M. Maynard, both in his personal capacity and as trustee of Fiducie Maynard 2004 (the “Trust”). The motion to institute proceedings was amended and particularized on or about November 30, 2011, re-amended on or about December 6, 2011, and amended yet again on or about January 27, 2012 (the “MIP”).2 7. With respect to the allegations of fact in the MIP and the exhibits, the respondent Lehoux Boivin agrees that: The Trust’s only assets are the shares of 9143-1304 Quebec Inc., which in turn holds, directly or indirectly, shares in 57 corporations referred to collectively as Groupe Melior.3 The corporations of Groupe Melior were involved in the construction, marketing and management of retirement homes, with each project being undertaken by a distinct legal entity.4 Mr. Maynard was a director of all of the corporations of Groupe Melior and was their directing mind.5 2 Found in the Application at p. 99 et seq. 3 MIP, paras. 25-26 (Application, p. 104) and Exhibit P-1 4 MIP, paras. 21 and 64(a) (Application, p. 104, 111) 5 MIP, paras. 50 and 56 (Application, p. 109-10) - 3 - Response of LEHOUX BOIVIN COMPTABLES AGRÉÉS, S.E.N.C. Overview and Facts The beneficiaries of the Trust are Mr. Maynard and his daughter.6 The current trustee of the Trust is the applicant, Mr. Yves Brunette, but at all relevant times, the trustees were Mr. Maynard and Mr. Robert Ruel.7 The respondents are lawyers and accountants who at relevant times provided various professional services to various corporations forming part of Groupe Melior, as well as to 9143-1304 Quebec Inc., to the Trust, and to Mr. Maynard. In 2010, most of the corporations of Groupe Melior became bankrupt.8 In 2009, various corporations of Groupe Melior had received substantial sales tax assessments,9 and in 2008, it was discovered that an employee had defrauded 20 corporations of Groupe Melior of more than $1.7 million.10 The applicants allege that the respondents committed various faults in connection with the management of the sales tax issue, and that the respondent Lehoux Boivin should have discovered the fraud. 8. In the MIP, the Trust claims an amount of