Lefebvre (Bankrupt), Re

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie and LeBel, JJ.
• Citation: 2004 SCC 63,(2004), 326 N.R. 353 (SCC)
• Date: 28 October 2004

Lefebvre (Bankrupt), Re (2004), 326 N.R. 353 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2004] N.R. TBEd. OC.036

Services DaimlerChrysler Canada Inc. (appellant) v. Jean-François Lebel (respondent)

(29770)

GMAC Location Limitée (appellant) v. Raymond Chabot Inc. (respondent)

(29780; 2004 CSC 63; 2004 SCC 63)

Indexed As: Lefebvre (Bankrupt), Re

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie and LeBel, JJ.

October 28, 2004.

Summary:

In these two appeals, two assignees of long-term vehicle leasing contracts published their ownership rights after the lessees went bankrupt and the trustees took over the ve­hicles. Each assignee filed a proof of claim with the trustee. They both sought possession of the vehicles of which they were still the owners. Both claims were rejected. Each as­signee filed a motion in appeal.

The Quebec Superior Court, in decisions reported at [2001] R.J.Q. 2679 and [2001] J.Q. No. 3446 respectively, dismissed the motions. The assignees appealed. The ap­peals were heard together.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, Beauregard, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported at [2003] R.J.Q. 819, dismissed the appeals. The assignees appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeals.

Bankruptcy - Topic 431

Property of bankrupt - Particular prop­erty -Property leased by bankrupt - [See Que­bec Nominate Contracts - Topic 1011 ].

Practice - Topic 7029

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitlement to party and party costs - Successful party - Exceptions - Novel or important point - [See Quebec Procedure - Topic 7024 ].

Practice - Topic 7451.1

Costs - Solicitor and client costs - Entitle­ment to solicitor and client costs - Unsuc­cessful party - [See Quebec Procedure - Topic 7024 ].

Quebec Nominate Contracts - Topic 1004

Lease - General principles - Effect of lease - [See Quebec Nominate Contracts - Topic 1011 ].

Quebec Nominate Contracts - Topic 1011

Lease - General principles - Publication of rights resulting from lease - The assignees of long-term vehicle leasing contracts pub­lished their ownership rights after the lessees went bankrupt and the trustees took over the vehicles - The assignees filed a proof of claim with the trustees, seeking possession of the vehicles - The claims were rejected - The trustees invoked art. 1852 of the Civil Code of Québec respect­ing publication of rights resulting from a lease - They said that publication was tar­dy and hence, the as­signees' rights could not be set up against them as third persons - The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the claims should have been allowed - The assignees held ownership rights and not simple claims guaranteed by real securities - Those own­ership rights did not result from the lease and had not been transferred to the lessees - The vehicles were never in the lessees' patrimonies and could there­fore not be liquidated by the trustees - The Civil Code of Québec did not provide a trus­­tee, in case of failure to publish rights arising out of a lease, with a greater inter­est than that of the bankrupt so as to allow the trustee to dispose of the subject prop­erty - Also, a trustee was not a third per­son given the dual aspects of his duties, i.e., exercising the bankrupt's rights to hold and dispose of the subject property on the one hand, and being the legal manda­tary of the credi­tors on the other hand.

Quebec Procedure - Topic 7024

Costs - Entitlement - Lawyer-client basis - The Supreme Court of Canada awarded costs on a solicitor-client basis to the un­successful respondent where the appel­lant brought before the court an issue of partic­ular interest that it was more con­cerned about than the actual outcome of the case and where the participation of the respon­dent and his counsel was helpful to the analysis of the issues - See paragraph 41.

Cases Noticed:

Ouellet (Bankrupt), Re (2004), 326 N.R. 379 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].

Giffen (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 91; 222 N.R. 29; 101 B.C.A.C. 161; 164 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 8].

Massouris (Syndic de), Re, [2002] R.J.Q. 901 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Mervis (Syndic de), Re, [2002] R.J.Q. 2268, refd to. [para. 11].

Civano Construction Inc. v. Crédit M.-G. Inc., [1962] C.S. 45 (Que.), refd to. [para. 34].

Kowalski v. Trust Général du Canada, [1976] C.A. 93 (Que.), refd to. [para. 34].

Poliquin v. Banque de Montreal, [1998] R.L. 560 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Mercure v. Marquette (A.) & Fils Inc., [1977] 1 S.C.R. 54; 10 N.R. 234, refd to. [para. 36].

Flintoft v. Royal Bank of Canada, [1964] S.C.R. 631, refd to. [para. 37].

Statutes Noticed:

Civil Code of Québec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, art. 1852, art. 2941 [para. 15].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Auger, Jacques, and Bohémier, Albert, Le statut du syndic (2003), 37 R.J.T. 59, pp. 67 and 102 to 106 [para. 34].

Cantin Cumyn, Madeleine, Traité de droit civil: L'administration du bien d'autrui, 2000, pp. 110 to 112 [para. 35].

Lafond Pierre-Claude, Précis de droit des biens, 2e éd., 1999, p. 192 [para. 21].

Lamontagne, Denys-Claude, avec la collab­oration de Pierre Duchaine, La publicité des droits, 3e éd., 2001, pp. 31, 32, 301 [para. 22].

Macdonald, Roderick A., Faut-il s'assurer qu'on appelle un chat un chat? Observa­tions sur la méthodologie législative à travers l'énumération limitative des sûre­tés, "la présomption d'hypothèque" et "le principe de l'essence de l'opération", dans Mélanges Germain Brière, 1993, p. 527 [para. 20].

Payette, Louis, Les sûretés réelles dans le Code civil du Québec, 2e éd., 2001, pp. 2, 3, 59, 60 to 64 [para. 20].

Québec, Ministère de la Justice, Commen­taires du ministre de la Justice: Le Code civil du Québec, t. II., 1993, p. 1654 [para. 20].

Québec, Office de révision du Code civil. Rapport sur le Code civil du Québec, vol. II., 1977, t. 1, pp. 431-435 [para. 20].

Counsel:

Yves Lacroix and Gary Makila, for the appellant, Services Daimler­Chrysler Can­ada Inc.;

Hugues La Rue, for the appellant GMAC Location Ltée;

Martin P. Jutras, for the respondent Jean-François Lebel.

No one appeared for the respondent Raymond Chabot Inc.

Solicitors of Record:

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin, Québec, Quebec, for the appellant, Services DaimlerChrysler Inc.;

Pothier Delisle, Sainte-Foy, Québec, for the appellant, GMAC Location Ltée;

Martin P. Jutras, Westmount, Québec, for the respondent Jean-François Lebel.

These appeals were heard on April 20, 2004, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Basta­rache, Binnie and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on Octo­ber 28, 2004, by LeBel, J.