N'est pas un préjudice irréparable un délai dans le paiement d'une somme d'argent

par Karim Renno
Irving Mitchell Kalichman s.e.n.c.r.l.

Décidément, c'est la journée des jugements rendus sur les demandes de sauvegarde par l'Honorable juge Stephen W. Hamilton. En effet, dans l'affaire Oliveri c. Ruberto (2014 QCCS 5745) le juge Hamilton indique que le délai pour une partie de recevoir paiement, bien que dérangeant, ne constitue pas un préjudice irréparable justifiant l'émission d'une ordonnance.

 

Le contexte de l'affaire est un peu inusité. En effet, la cause découle d'un mariage décommandé et des dommages qui s'en sont suivis.

 

La Demanderesse recherche l'émission de certaines ordonnances de sauvegarde, dont le paiement de certains contractants impayés.  

 

Saisi de la demande de sauvegarde, le juge Hamilton indique que le paiement en retard de certains contractants ne constitue pas un préjudice irréparable pour la Demanderesse en l'instance:

[11]        The Plaintiff asks that the contractors be paid in full and that the balance (including an additional $10,000 held in the lawyers’ trust accounts) be held in trust by the notary or the lawyers pending final judgment.  The Defendant proposes that an amount sufficient to pay the contractors be held in trust and that the balance be distributed to the parties.

[12]        I agree that the contractors should be protected, but I will not issue a safeguard order that they be paid at this stage of the proceedings: 

1.         Although the contractors appear to have the right to be paid, it is not clear how much or by whom, because the Defendant contests both of those issues.  I am not in a position to decide either of those issues today. 

2.         Neither the Plaintiff nor the contractors will suffer a serious or irreparable prejudice if the contractors are not paid today.  A delay in the payment of money is obviously an inconvenience for the contractors, but it does not amount to a serious or irreparable prejudice.  As for the parties, there is the risk that they will be involved in further litigation and seizures.  It would indeed be unfortunate for all parties if the contractors felt compelled to sue or to seize assets, but I do not view that as a serious or irreparable prejudice to the parties.  Further, I will order that the sums required to pay the contractors be held in trust to reduce that risk, and I will authorize the Plaintiff to release her half of the amounts due to the contractors if she chooses. 

3.         If the sums are released to the contractors, it will prejudice the Defendant’s ability to recover any overpayments and, potentially, to recover amounts which should have been paid by the Plaintiff’s parents, if that is the decision on the merits. 

4.         Finally, there is no urgency.  The contractors do not have the right to prevent the sale because they did not publish legal hypothecs.  While I hate to, in a sense, punish the contractors because they were doing a favour for family and friends, I must take the file as I find it.

Référence : [2014] ABD 482