Summary

35520

Georges Ghanotakis, et al. v. René Laporte, et al.

(Quebec) (Civil) (By Leave)

Keywords

None.

Summary

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Civil procedure — Res judicata — Judgment rendered in 2009 in action instituted by applicant against respondents — Two new actions instituted by applicant dismissed on ground of res judicata — Court of Appeal dismissing applicant’s appeal — Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that previous judgment was res judicata in relation to recursory action and extracontractual action instituted by applicant — Whether Court of Appeal failed to take allegations in motion to institute proceedings as proven — Civil Code of Québec, art. 2848.

In 1997, the applicant and Imprimerie régionale ARL ltée (“ARL”) signed an agreement through which ARL purchased the applicant’s shares in a third company (“LEI”). The agreement gave rise to a number of disputes and judgments, including with regard to the unpaid salary owed to the applicant by LEI. In 2009, the parties’ dispute came before Devito J. of the Quebec Superior Court, who rendered a decision in which she determined the balance owed to the applicant, taking into account a partial payment received by the applicant and the claims paid by Mr. Laporte for which he sought compensation. Since compensation gave rise to a payment, Devito J. concluded that only $1,871.11 was still owed to the applicant.

The applicant subsequently brought two actions against the respondents. In the first action, the applicant argued that the claims acquired by Mr. Laporte, for which Devito J. had found that compensation could be effected against his claim, had to be reduced by 50% because of the fact that he and Mr. Laporte were sureties for the debts owed by LEI. He also alleged new claims owed by LEI and sought payment for those claims from Mr. Laporte and ARL. In a second action apparently based on the rules of suretyship, the applicant also alleged collusion between the respondents and third parties from whom they had acquired the claims. Through this action, the applicant set up compensation for the amounts owed to him by Mr. Laporte.

The respondents were successful, with both actions being dismissed. The applicant appealed both judgments to the Quebec Court of Appeal, which dismissed his appeals.

Lower Court Rulings

January 19, 2012
Superior Court of Quebec

2011 QCCS 7302, 705-17-003881-115
see file
June 10, 2013
Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montréal)

2013 QCCA 1046, 500-09-022335-129, 500-09-022881-122
see file
 

loading