Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 14

CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL No: 500-17-

SUPERIOR COURT ___________________________________

L.G. PLAZA INC., a duly incorporated company having its principal place of business at 4810 Jean Talon West, suite 401, in the city and district of Montreal (Quebec), H4P 2N5

Plaintiff vs.

JOHN DE MELO, domiciled and residing at 314 Olivier Street East, in the city of Chateauguay, district of Montreal, (Quebec), J6J 1N8

-and-

9256-5084 QUEBEC INC., a duly incorporated company having a place of business at 4820 Jean Talon West, in the city and district of Montreal (Quebec), H4P 2N5

Defendants Solidarily MOTION TO INSTITUTE PERMANENT INJUNCTION PROCEEDINGS AND MOTION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A PROVISORY INJUNCTION ORDER, A SAFEGUARD ORDER AND AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION ORDER (Articles 751 and ss. of the Code of Civil Procedure) ________________________________________________________________________ TO ONE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGES OF THE SUPERIOR COURT SITTING IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTREAL, THE PLAINTIFF L.G. PLAZA INC. RESPECTFULLY ALLEGES:

1. That Plaintiff is the owner of a building bearing the civic addresses 4790-4830 Jean Talon West (hereinafter referred to as the Property); in the city and district of Montreal, Province of Quebec; 2. That in virtue of a lease, entered into at the city and district of Montreal, Province of Quebec, (hereinafter referred to as the Lease) and produced herewith as Exhibit P-1, Plaintiff leased to Defendant John De Melo those premises situated at 4820 Jean Talon West (hereinafter referred to as Premises), and for a term having commenced on the 1st day of February 2012;

3. That under the terms of the Lease, more specifically at section 10.2: 10.2 Tenant shall not place or permit anyone to place any signs, advertisements, notices or posters outside the Leased Premises or in the interior of the Leased Premises if such signs, advertisements, notices or posters are visible from the exterior of the Leased Premises, without the consent of the Landlord, which consent may not be unreasonably withheld. 4. That on or about July 23rd 2012, Plaintiff started receiving many calls and complaints from other tenants located inside the Property in regards to the signage located outside the Leased Premises, the more as fully appears from a series of photographs produced herewith as Exhibit P-2;

5. That Defendants have not respected their rights and obligations under the terms of the Lease and have not abided by their obligation of obtaining consent from the Plaintiff for placing a sign outside the Leased Premises displaying the words FUKYU Bar a Sushi;

6. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants never requested consent from the Plaintiff in regards to posting any signage on the exterior of the Leased Premises;

7. That under the terms of the Lease, more specifically at section 9: 9. Without prejudice to all of the rights and recourses available to the Landlord, the following shall be considered defaults under the terms of this Lease: ..........

(c) in the event that Tenant shall be in default in observing any covenant herein contained and/or performing any of its obligations contained in this Lease (other than a default in the payment of rent or additional rent) and such default shall continue for ten (10) days after written notice specifying such default shall have been given to Tenant by Landlord. ............. 9.4 In the event of any default under the terms of this Lease, the Landlord without prejudice to any rights or remedies it may have hereunder or by law shall have the right to terminate this Lease forthwith upon written notice given to Tenant by Landlord. Tenant upon such a termination of this Lease shall thereupon quit and surrender the Leased Premises to Landlord and Landlord, its agents and servants may immediately or at any time thereafter re-enter the Leased Premises and dispossess Tenant and remove any and all persons and any or all property there from whether by summary dispossession proceedings or by any suitable action or proceeding at law, or by force or otherwise without being liable to prosecution or damages therefore.

8. That Defendant John de Melo is currently under default under the terms of this Lease by not performing its obligation of obtaining consent from Plaintiff in regards to placing signage on the exterior of the Leased Premises;

9. That as such, and considering that Defendants are in default of its Lease obligations, Plaintiff is hereby entitled to request and does request: a) b) c) Declaration of termination of the Lease; That the Leased Premises revert to the possession of the Plaintiff; That Defendant cease immediately occupation of the Leased Premises;

10. That Plaintiff thereafter, made inquiry with the Registre des Entreprises du Quebec and determined that the name Bar a Sushi Fukyu and/or Fukyu Sushi Bar on March 1st 2012 for premises situated in the Property other than the Leased Premises, the more as fully appears from an excerpt of the CIDREQ from the Business Registrar of Quebec produced herewith as Exhibit P-3, under the Defendant 9256-8054 Quebec Inc., and subsequently never advised

Plaintiff;

11. That as fully appears from a copy of the CIDREQ, John or Joao de Melo is indicated as a director and shareholder for the Defendant 9256-5084 Quebec Inc.;

12. That Defendant John de Melo never advised Plaintiff that a company under the name FUKYU Bar a Sushi was purportedly formed for the purposes of a restaurant inside the Property featuring the Leased Premises;

13. That had Plaintiff known that Defendant John De Melo was to operate his restaurant under the name FUKYU Bar a Sushi, they would have never signed a lease and would thereby not give their consent with regards to the signage located on the outside of the Leased Premises; 14. That on July 24th 2012, Plaintiff sent a letter of demand to the Defendant demanding that the signage indicating FUKYU Bar a Sushi be removed from the exterior of the Leased Premises within a delay of 48 hours of reception, copy of which is herewith produced for production as Exhibit P-4; 15. That on July 25th 2012, a letter of response from Defendant John De Melos Counsel was delivered to Plaintiffs attorney indicating amongst other things:

a) That Plaintiff approved and allowed Defendants to put up the sign for his restaurant in the location where the sign is presently located;

b) That Defendant John de Melo has applied as of the date of the letter of response to the city for the permit and is awaiting approval;

copy of which is herewith produced for production as Exhibit P-5;

16. That Plaintiff vigorously denies ever giving consent and/or any approval to Defendant in any shape or form for the sign FUKYU Bar a Sushi and that no conversation in regards to signage has ever taken place between all interested parties;

17. That under the terms of the Lease, more specifically at section 10.3: 10.3 All such signs shall comply with the lawful requirements of municipal and governmental authorities. 18. That through Defendant John De Melos response letter through counsel, it admits to not even having approval from governmental authorities prior to placing the signage FUKYU Bar a Sushi on the exterior of those Leased Premises;

19. That under the terms of the Lease, more specifically at section 14(H): 14(H)The Tenant shall hold Landlord free, clear and harmless from any disturbances etc. that such Tenant may suffer from co-tenants. 20. That Defendants continue to use without right the signage FUKYU Bar a Sushi, with the result that Plaintiffs other tenants located inside the Property are being prejudiced and that its general goodwill and their reputable name are being prejudiced, the more as fully appears from a series of letters from several tenants, copies of which are herewith produced for production as Exhibit P-6, the whole in violation of Plaintiffs rights both under the law and under the Lease;

21. That as of this day, Defendants are still neglecting to abide by their obligations in that:

a) Defendants have not advised or requested consent from Plaintiff in placing the signage FUKYU Bar a Sushi on the exterior of the Leased Premises; b) Defendants have not ceased from placing the signage Fukyu Bar a Sushi on the exterior of the Leased Premises, despite the letter of demand dated July 24 th 2012, Exhibit P-4; c) Defendants did not comply with those lawful requirements in obtaining approval from the city of Montreal prior to placing the signage FUKYU Bar a Sushi on the

exterior of the Leased Premises, as more fully appears from a letter from opposing Counsel, Exhibit P-5; d) Defendants did not indicate to Plaintiff that a company was indeed formed for the purposes of the restaurant for those Leased Premises; e) Defendants is not complying with its legal requirement to act in such a way as to not disturb the normal enjoyment of the other tenants located inside the Property;

22. That Defendants are therefore acting in flagrant violation of the Lease, Exhibit P-1 and in flagrant violation of Plaintiffs rights;

THE ORDERS SOUGHT

23. Plaintiff has a clear right to the issuance of a provisionary injunction order, a safeguard order and an interlocutory injunction order enjoining Defendants to immediately cease and desist from placing the signage FUKYU Bar a Sushi on the exterior of the Leased Premises;

A CLEAR RIGHT

24. That in virtue of the Lease, Exhibit P-1, Defendants, without any rights whatsoever, intentionally and illegally continues to use the signage FUKYU Bar a Sushi without consent; 25. That the Plaintiff has a clear right to the removal of the signage FUKYU Bar a Sushi located on the outside of the Leased Premises;

IRREPARABLE HARM 26. That on July 24th 2012, Plaintiff had signed a letter of intent to lease for fifteen thousand square feet with a highly reputable digital marketing agency, for a lease set to begin on October 1st 2012, the more as amply described in a letter of intent, copy of which is herewith produced for production as Exhibit P-7; 27. That on July 31st 2012, Plaintiff received a letter from a director of the prospective

Tenant, indicating that the word FUKYU was inappropriate and insulting with a negative impact on their business and that their commitment to leasing from the Plaintiff was contingent on the removal of the signage indicating the word FUKYU located on the outside of the Leased Premises, copy of which is herewith produced for production as Exhibit P-8; 28. That on July 30th 2012, Plaintiff received a letter Exhibit P-6, from the largest tenant on the Property, located on the 1st floor and which occupies 96,000 square feet, indicating the potential offense to their customers and loss of business as a result of the word FUKYU located outside of the Leased Premises; That on August 8th 2012, Plaintiff received a letter Exhibit P-6, from a tenant on the ground floor of the Property, indicating its offense to them and their clients with having the word FUKYU on signage directly adjacent to their leased premises;

29.

30. That without an Order from this honorable Court, Plaintiff runs the risk to suffer a substantial loss of goodwill as well as the loss of tenants and prospective tenants;

31. That without an Order from this honorable Court, Defendant will continue using the signage FUKYU Bar a Sushi, the whole without any rights whatsoever, which constitutes a serious prejudice to Plaintiff, prejudice which is impossible to evaluate;

RESPECTIVE INCONVENIENCES

32. That the balance of inconveniences, if it had to be considered by the Court, would clearly be in favour of the Plaintiffs because:

a.) Plaintiff as well as its largest and most important tenants are being prejudiced by Defendants actions and will suffer substantial damages in loss of potential tenants and current tenants;

b.) The longer Defendants pursue their unlawful commercial practices, the more Plaintiffs tenants and/or prospective tenants may decided to institute proceedings

to resiliate their Lease and damages or decided against leasing inside the Property;

c.) Defendants will not suffer any prejudice as they will continue to operate a restaurant inside the Leased Premises, should this Honorable Court decide to not terminate the Lease;

TIME OF THE ESSENCE

33. It is urgent that Defendants cease their unfaithful and illegal commercial practices considering the loss of goodwill that results in Defendants actions, causing prejudice to Plaintiff and increasing everyday and more specifically with the prospective tenant, Bam Strategy Inc;

34. That it is urgent for this Court to issue a provisory injunction Order and a safeguard order directing Defendants to remove the signage FUKYU Bar a Sushi located on the outside of the Leased Premises so that Defendants cease to cause harm to clients goodwill and effect Plaintiffs dealings with tenants and prospective tenants; 35. That given Defendants conduct and the real and imminent risk that if Defendant is allowed to continue its course of conduct, Plaintiffs prejudice with loss of goodwill and loss of tenants and/or prospective tenants will continue to accrue, thus aggravating the present situation and any judgement to be rendered will be illusory;

36. That Plaintiff asks this Honorable Court to be relieved from giving security for costs considering Plaintiffs clear rights arising from the Lease, Exhibit P-1;

DAMAGES

37. That Plaintiff is entitled to the reimbursement of their legal fees incurred to protect their rights, such fees being presently estimated at $10 000.00, to be adjusted at hearing;

38. That considering those unlawful acts of the Defendants, Plaintiffs are entitled to exemplary damages of $25 000.00, representing contempt for Plaintiffs rights, trouble and inconveniences and waste of time, to be adjusted;

39. Plaintiff reserves their rights against Defendants;

40. The present Motion is well founded in fact and in law;

WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF PRAYS THAT BY JUDGMENT TO INTERVENE HEREIN, THIS HONOURABLE COURT: A. BY WAY OF PROVISIONAL INJUNCTION ORDER:

ISSUE a provisional injunction order to be valid for a period of ten (10) days from the judgment to be rendered and enjoining Defendants to and/or to respect a Court order to immediately cease and desist from placing the signage FUKYU Bar a Sushi on the exterior of the Leased Premises;

RELIEVE Plaintiff from giving security for costs with respect to the interlocutory provisory injunction Order asked for;

DECLARE that any and all orders rendered by this Court hereunder be effective notwithstanding appeal;

AUTHORIZE the service of the judgment to be rendered on any person and beyond business hours;

B. BY WAY OF SAFEGUARD ORDER:

ISSUE a safeguard order to be valid until a date to be determined by this honorable Court enjoining Defendants to and/or to respect a Court order to immediately cease and desist from placing the signage FUKYU Bar a Sushi on the exterior of the Leased Premises;

DECLARE THAT Defendants be foreclosed from pleading or producing a defence, in the eventuality that Defendant defaults in removing the signage FUKYU Bar a Sushi, or to advise Defendant by written notice within a delay of 48 hours that said sums have been deposited;

RELIEVE Plaintiff from giving security for costs with respect to the safeguard order asked for;

DECLARE that any and all orders rendered by this Court hereunder be effective notwithstanding appeal;

AUTHORIZE the service of the judgment to be rendered on any person and beyond business hours;

C. BY WAY OF AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION ORDER:

ISSUE a interlocutory injunction to be valid until final judgment date to and enjoining Defendants to and/or to respect a Court order to immediately cease and desist from placing the signage FUKYU Bar a Sushi on the exterior of the Leased Premises;

RELIEVE Plaintiff from giving security for costs with respect to the safeguard order asked for;

DECLARE that any and all orders rendered by this Court hereunder be effective notwithstanding appeal;

AUTHORIZE the service of the judgment to be rendered on any person and beyond business hours; C. BY WAY OF FINAL JUDGMENT: GRANT the present Motion to Institute Proceedings:

ISSUE a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants to immediately cease and desist from placing the signage FUKYU Bar a Sushi on the exterior of the Leased Premises;

DECLARE THAT the Lease for those Leased Premises situated at 4820 Jean Talon West, in the city and district of Montreal, Province of Quebec, be terminated without renewal as of the date of judgment; DECLARE that the Leased Premises revert to the Plaintiffs possession as of the date of judgment;

ORDER the Defendants to cease occupation of the Premises;

CONDEMN Defendants solidarily to pay to the Plaintiff the amount ten thousand dollars together with interest at the legal rate and additional indemnity in virtue of article 1619 C.C.Q.;

CONDEMN Defendants solidarily to pay to the Plaintiff the additional sum of twenty-five thousand dollars; together with interest at the legal rate and additional indemnity in virtue of article 1619 C.C.Q.; RESERVE Plaintiffs rights and recourses to amend its claim in order to include amounts which will subsequently become due under the terms of the Lease;

AUTHORIZE the service of the judgment to be rendered on any person and beyond business hours;

ORDER provisional execution of the judgment rendered herein, notwithstanding appeal;

THE WHOLE with costs; MONTREAL, August 10th 2012 _____________________________ David Ghavitian Attorney for Plaintiff

NOTICE OF PRESENTATION

TO: JOHN DE MELO 314 Olivier Street East, Montreal, Quebec J6J 1N8 & 9256-5084 QUEBEC INC. 4820 Jean Talon West, Montreal Quebec, H4P 2N5

TAKE NOTICE that the present Motion for the Issuance of a Provisory Injunction will be presented for adjudication before one of the Honorable Superior Court Judges sitting in chamber in and for the judicial district of Montreal, at the Palais de Justice de Montreal, 10 St. Antoine Street E., on August 13th 2012 at 9h30 a.m. or so soon thereafter as counsel may be heard. AND DO YOU GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY. MONTREAL, August 10th 2012

_____________________________ David Ghavitian Attorney for Plaintiff

NOTICE OF PRESENTATION

TO: JOHN DE MELO 314 Olivier Street East, Montreal, Quebec J6J 1N8 & 9256-5084 QUEBEC INC. 4820 Jean Talon West, Montreal Quebec, H4P 2N5

TAKE NOTICE that the present Motion for the Issuance of a Safeguard Order will be presented for adjudication before one of the Honorable Superior Court Judges sitting in chamber in and for the judicial district of Montreal, at the Palais de Justice de Montreal, 10 St. Antoine Street E., on August 21st 2012 at 9h30 a.m. or so soon thereafter as counsel may be heard. AND DO YOU GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY. MONTREAL, August 10th 2012

_____________________________ David Ghavitian Attorney for Plaintiff

NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (article 119 C.p.c.)

TAKE NOTICE THAT Plaintiff has filed the present proceedings at the Greffe of the Superior Court of Quebec in the District of Montreal. To respond to this demand, you must appear in writing, personally or through a lawyer, at the Palais de justice de Montral located at 1, Notre-Dame East, Montreal, Quebec within ten (10) days of service of the present Motion. If you fail to appear within the delay, a default judgment may be rendered against you without further notice upon expiry of the said ten day delay. If you appear, the Motion will be presented before the Greffier Spcial of the Court on September 20th 2012 in room 2.16 at 9:00 A.M. and the court will at that time carry out the appropriate procedures in order to ensure the good process of the matter or may proceed to hearing, unless the parties hereto agree to a schedule to be respected by all parties to ensure the matter proceeds. Said schedule must be filed at the Greffe of the Court. In support of its Motion to Institute Proceedings, Plaintiff invokes the following Exhibits: Exhibit P-1: Exhibit P-2: Exhibit P-3: Exhibit P-4: Exhibit P-5: Exhibit P-6: Exhibit P-7: Exhibit P-8: Agreement of Lease Series of photographs taken outside the Property Excerpt of the CIDREQ register Letter of demand dated July 24th 2012 Response letter dated July 25th 2012 Letters from Tenants Letter of Intent dated July 24th 2012 Letter dated July 31st 2012

Which exhibits are attached to these present. MONTRAL, August 10th 2012

__________________________________ David Ghavitian Attorney for Plaintiff