Le pouvoir d'un juge de la Cour supérieure d'exclure un administrateur des activités d'une compagnie par voie d'ordonnance de sauvegarde

par Karim Renno
Renno Vathilakis Inc.

Même si les situations où cela sera justifié ne font pas légion, il fait définitivement partie des pouvoirs d'un juge de la Cour supérieure d'exclure un administrateur des affaires d'une compagnie dans le cadre d'une ordonnance de sauvegarde. En effet, lorsque la Cour constate que cet administrateur met possiblement en danger l'existence de la personne morale, une telle ordonnance sera justifiée. La décision très récente de l'Honorable juge Silvana Conte dans Mitri c. Fala (2020 QCCS 863) illustre ce propos.

Dans le cadre d'un recours en oppression, le Demandeur recherche la modification d'une ordonnance de sauvegarde pour exclure la Défenderesse de l'administration de la compagnie. Le Demandeur allègue que la Défenderesse ne respecte pas l'ordonnance de sauvegarde en vigueur et que son comportement met en péril la survie de la compagnie.

La Défenderesse conteste la véracité des allégations du Demandeur et ajoute que son retrait à titre d'administratice n'est pas justifié en les circonstances.

Bien qu'elle concède que le retrait d'un administrateur est un remède exceptionnel, la juge Conte indique que ce pouvoir existe bel et bien. Elle en vient de plus à a conclusion que son exercice est justifié dans les circonstances:

[32] The Court agrees that Defendant’s removal from the operations of the Mise en cause is an exceptional remedy and is analogous to her removal as a director. In Re Stelco, the Court stated:

[55] Colin Campbell J. recently invoked the oppression remedy to remove directors, without appointing anyone in their place, in Catalyst Fund General Partner I Inc. v. Hollinger Inc., supra. The bar is high. In reviewing the applicable law, C. Campbell J. said (para. 68):

Director removal is an extraordinary remedy and certainly should be imposed most sparingly. As a starting point, I accept the basic proposition set out in Peterson, "Shareholder Remedies in Canada". [See Note 5 at the end of the document]  

SS. 18.172 Removing and appointing directors to the board is an extreme form of judicial intervention. The board of directors is elected by the shareholders, vested with the power to manage the corporation, and appoints the officers of the company who undertake to conduct the day-to-day affairs of the corporation. [Footnote omitted.] It is clear that the board of directors has control over policymaking and management of the corporation. By tampering with a board, a court directly affects the management of the corporation. If a reasonable balance between protection of corporate stakeholders and the freedom of management to conduct the affairs of the business in an efficient manner is desired, altering the board of directors should be a measure of last resort. The order could be suitable where the continuing presence of the incumbent directors is harmful to both the company and the interests of corporate stakeholders, and where the appointment of a new director or directors would remedy the oppressive conduct without a receiver or receiver-manager.  

(Emphasis added)

[56] C. Campbell J. found that the continued involvement of the Ravelston directors in the Hollinger situation would "significantly impede" the interests of the public shareholders and that those directors were "motivated by putting their interests first, not those of the company" (paras. 82-83). (…)

[33] However, the facts of this case support her exclusion from the Mis en cause’s operations as Defendant’s conduct is harmful to the business and operations of the Mise en cause and to the shareholders. There is simply to other practical and efficient remedy to ensure that there be no misappropriation of the cash receipts. The addition of a third party to verify payouts and to make the cash deposits on a weekly basis is costly and will not provide any control over the cash receipts or prevent Defendant from continuing to mismanage the proceeds of the Laval store.

Commentaires:

Ceux qui sont intéressés par la question peuvent également se référer au jugement rendu par l'Honorable juge Marie-Anne Paquette dans l'affaire El Garamo c. Asaad (2015 QCCS 5902).

Référence : [2020] ABD 128