La liste des sanctions prévue à l'article 54.3 C.p.c. n'est pas exhaustive

par Karim Renno

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt s.e.n.c.r.l./s.r.l.

Nous attirons aujourd'hui l'attention de nos lecteurs sur un jugement très significatif de la Cour d'appel sur les articles 54.1 C.p.c. et suivants. En effet, dans l'affaire Acadia Subaru c. Michaud (2011 QCCA 1037), la Cour d'appel en vient à la conclusion que les remèdes prévus à l'article 54.3 C.p.c. ne sont pas exhaustifs, de sorte qu'il est possible d'ordonner une partie demanderesse de verser un cautionnement pour frais.


Dans cette affaire, la cour d'appel est saisie du pourvoi d'un jugement de la Cour du Québec, rendu le 3 décembre 2009, par lequel le juge de première instance avait accueilli en partie une requête sur les articles 54.1 C.p.c. et suivants pour faire déclarer la demande en justice des Appelantes abusive, a déclaré cette demande abusive en ce qui a trait au montant des dommages punitifs réclamés par chacune des Appelantes et a ordonné la modification de la demande en justice afin de limiter le montant des dommages punitifs réclamés par chaque Appelante à 200 $.

Écrivant au nom d'un banc unanime, l'Honorable juge Nicholas Kasirer se déclare d'accord avec la conclusion du premier juge à l'effet que la poursuite apparaît sommairement être abusive au sens de l'article 54.2 C.p.c. Par ailleurs, il est en désaccord avec la conclusion de ce juge à l'effet que le remède approprié était la réduction du montant de dommages punitifs réclamés en l'absence de preuve spécifique quant à ces dommages. Pour cette raison, la conclusion à cet effet est renversée par la Cour d'appel.

Par ailleurs, opine le juge Kasirer, le juge de première instance aurait dû ordonner le dépôt d'un cautionnement pour frais. À cet égard, le fait que le cautionnement pour frais n'est pas expressément prévu à l'article 54.3 C.p.c. n'est pas un obstacle:

[96] Mr. Michaud asked the motions judge to order security for costs of $65,000.

[97] The judge declined to do so because this is not one of the remedies explicitly contemplated by the legislature at article 54.3 C.C.P. He also was of the view that the remedy he granted in reducing the amount of punitive damages brought the claim down to a "relatively normal" amount compared to like claims that come before the courts. Accordingly, security for costs was not necessary as a means of balancing the relative financial strengths of the parties.

[98] With due respect for this opinion, I am of the view that security for costs would provide proper redress in the circumstances. This is especially so given the fact that punitive damages cannot be reduced at this stage of the proceedings.

[99] The fact that security for costs is not explicitly mentioned among the remedies set forth in article 54.3 is not a bar to awarding them in the circumstances. Article 54.3, paragraph 2, (1) provides that the court may, if it considers it appropriate, subject the furtherance of the action to "certain conditions". It is true, as the appellants urge, that security for costs are generally awarded in a narrow set of circumstances, such as to ensure the reliable presence of a foreign plaintiff ready to pay costs before the court. This said, it seems most appropriate that security for costs be counted among the range of discretionary remedies available where there is an appearance of procedural impropriety.

[100] An analogy can be drawn with the powers of the Court of Appeal when faced with a motion to dismiss an appeal by reason of its improper or dilatory nature. When the Court decides against dismissing the appeal – where, for example, the signs of impropriety are present but not substantial enough to justify putting an end to the proceedings – it has the power pursuant to article 501 , paragraph 2 C.C.P. to subject the appeal to conditions, including the requirement that the appellant furnish security. That security acts as a sort of bond that protects the respondent against certain consequences of what may turn out to be an abusive appeal. It can also serve as a test of the seriousness of an appellant's resolve in proceeding with his or her appeal.

[101] In an analogous way, Mr. Michaud has established an appearance of abuse and the car dealers have failed to eradicate that appearance thus far. Subsequent materials filed in evidence may indeed reveal the action in defamation to be improper with a degree of certainty that would justify dismissal of the claim. Conversely, that evidence may fall short of the blameworthiness required to show that the action was an attempt to defeat the ends of justice. As the action proceeds, a condition should be imposed to make the pursuit of the claim by the plaintiffs conditional on a protection of the defendant’s interests. Article 54.3 allows the court to fashion a sanction that is proportional to how serious the appearance of impropriety is in the circumstances. While caution at this stage is appropriate – after all, the appellants’ action has only an appearance of abuse – it is also true that an excess of caution gives a disproportionate disadvantage to Mr. Michaud who would bear the full brunt of the inconvenience of moving forward with the action. For the appellants, to quote my colleague Pelletier, J.A. in an analogous context, "il s'agira d'un inconvénient mineur, car largement contrebalancé par l'effet d'une démonstration palpable de bonne foi dans l'utilisation du système judiciaire."

[102] Mr. Michaud asks for security for costs in the amount of $65,000 to guarantee payment of damages caused by the appellants’ action should it prove to be improper. This would include, should the applicable degree of evidence be mounted in service of the claim, an amount of damages for extrajudicial fees. Article 54.4 provides that, at the end of the day, a court ruling that the action is improper may award damages to Mr. Michaud to cover, in particular, costs and extrajudicial fees in the action. I think it not inappropriate, given what appears to be the imbalance of resources in this fight between 93 car dealers and a single defendant, to provide security for the extrajudicial fees that Mr. Michaud will have to spend in order to defend himself in what appears to be an abusive action. In the event, those damages will have to be proven, of course, and if the action turns out not to be improper, the amounts must be returned to the appellants.

Le texte intégral du jugement est disponible ici: http://bit.ly/jkEcnj

Référence neutre: [2011] ABD 192