Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The applicants sought to suspend execution of a Court of Appeal judgment while applying for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

• The underlying ruling confirmed Alexandre Bergevin’s shareholder status and ordered a buyout with financial compensation.

• The applicants argued the appeal raised a serious legal question justifying preservation of the status quo.

• The Court found the proposed grounds of appeal weak and primarily factual or mixed in nature.

• Despite skepticism about the legal merit, the Court noted the absence of prejudice to the respondents from maintaining the status quo.

• Execution of the judgment was suspended pending the outcome of the Supreme Court leave application process.

Background and facts of the case

In Corporation des constructeurs conseils c. Bergevin, the applicants, Corporation des constructeurs conseils and Francine Lessard (personally and as liquidator of the estate of Hélène Lessard), requested a suspension of a judgment rendered by the Quebec Court of Appeal on November 5, 2024. That judgment confirmed Alexandre Bergevin’s right to one-third of the company’s shares and ordered the applicants to buy back those shares, reimburse advances he had made to the company, and pay other sums totaling approximately $238,000 with interest and an additional indemnity from November 11, 2020.

The applicants, intending to seek leave to appeal the judgment to the Supreme Court of Canada, filed a motion under Article 390 of the Code de procédure civile and section 65.1(1) of the Supreme Court Act to suspend enforcement of the appellate decision until the Supreme Court either denies leave or renders a final ruling.

Arguments and legal framework

The motion was assessed under the well-established four-part test for suspensive relief pending Supreme Court review, as articulated in Manitoba (AG) v. Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd. and RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (AG). The test requires the applicant to demonstrate: (1) intention to seek leave to appeal; (2) serious or non-frivolous grounds of appeal; (3) potential for irreparable harm absent suspension; and (4) a balance of inconvenience favoring suspension in light of public interest and justice system considerations.

The applicants argued their appeal raised a legal question deserving of Supreme Court attention, while emphasizing that executing the judgment could result in prejudice, including the sale of immovable property. They also stressed that the property value exceeded the amount of the judgment and no irreversible harm would come to the respondents by delaying enforcement.

Court of Appeal’s decision

Justice Martin Vauclair acknowledged the applicants had signaled intent to seek Supreme Court review. However, he was unconvinced that their proposed appeal raised a serious question of law. The grounds appeared to involve issues of fact or mixed fact and law, with limited legal novelty. The Court noted that the claim of a legal issue warranting clarification seemed “more apparent than real.”

Nonetheless, the judge found that the balance of inconvenience favored granting the suspension. The respondents had already secured the immovables through seizure but conceded no concrete prejudice would result from maintaining the current situation. In contrast, enforcing the judgment before the Supreme Court ruled on the leave application could cause irreversible consequences for the applicants.

Conclusion and final decision

Justice Vauclair granted the motion and ordered the suspension of execution of the Court of Appeal’s November 2024 judgment. The suspension will remain in effect until either the expiration of the time to seek Supreme Court leave or a final decision by the Supreme Court, subject to any orders that Court may issue.

No legal costs were awarded. The decision reflects the judiciary’s cautious approach to preserving appellate rights while respecting the finality of lower court judgments.