Satys Aerospace v. IMP Group Limited

7 Aug 2025

Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

Leave sought to appeal an interlocutory order compelling a multi-million-dollar purchase-price deposit in an action for conveyance of title (arts. 31, 357 C.p.c.)
Parallel request to suspend provisional execution of that order pending the appeal (art. 514 C.p.c.)
Dispute over admissibility of two new sworn declarations on irreparable harm and adequacy of alternative security; respondent consents for the stay motion only, not for leave
Challenge raises the competence of a single judge versus a panel to receive such evidence and decide the motions
All motions (leave, stay, admissibility, and potential “new evidence” motion) deferred to a panel sitting September 29, 2025; no execution of the impugned order until then
Deadlines set: any new-evidence motion and extra copies of filings due by August 29, 2025; costs to follow

Background and facts
The respondent instituted an action in passation de titre, seeking to compel transfer of title in a commercial transaction. On June 5, 2025, the Superior Court (Montréal, Bundaru J.) ordered the applicant to deposit the purchase price of CAD 14,652,838 plus taxes in court until a merits judgment or further order. The applicant then brought two appellate motions: (1) for leave to appeal that interlocutory order under arts. 31 and 357 C.p.c., and (2) to suspend provisional execution of the order during the appeal under art. 514 C.p.c.

Motions and evidentiary posture
To support both the leave motion and the stay, the applicant sought to file two sworn declarations attesting to irreparable harm within art. 31 C.p.c. and the unavailability of adequate alternative security (an option contemplated by the trial order). The respondent opposed use of those declarations on the leave motion, characterizing them as inadmissible new evidence that could and should have been adduced below and arguing that any such request belongs before a panel. The respondent did consent to their use on the stay motion but asked to examine the declarants if the declarations were admitted at all.

Panel referral and interim arrangement
The single judge held that the respondent’s arguments were serious and potentially implicated his competence as a single judge to rule. He therefore deferred the leave motion, the stay motion, and the admissibility of the proposed declarations to a panel of the Court. The applicant may also evaluate filing a separate motion to adduce new evidence. In the interim, the parties agreed that no steps would be taken to execute the impugned order until the motions are heard by the panel.

Outcome and operative directions
All matters were referred to a panel sitting on September 29, 2025, in the Pierre-Basile-Mignault courtroom. The Court took note that, if the applicant intends to file a motion for new evidence, it must do so by August 29, 2025. The parties must also file by that date two additional copies of the motions and supporting materials that were prepared for the August 7, 2025 hearing. Costs are to follow.

What happens next
On September 29, 2025, the panel will determine (i) whether leave to appeal should be granted, (ii) whether to stay provisional execution pending the appeal, and (iii) whether the sworn declarations are admissible in support of either motion (and, if filed, whether any separate new-evidence motion should be granted). Until that hearing, the impugned order will not be executed per the parties’ agreement recorded by the Court.

Neither party obtained a substantive win yet — the Court of Appeal did not decide the merits of the leave to appeal or stay motions. Instead, all issues were deferred to a panel, and both parties agreed to suspend execution of the trial court order until the September 29, 2025 hearing.

Download documents