Investissements Tycorra Inc. (" Tycorra ") is an Ontario corporation. In February 2009, judgment was rendered by default against it. It filed a motion in revocation but the motion was dismissed. Tycorra is appealing the decision.

Tycorra pleads that the service was irregular for not complying with the criteria of service upon a legal person established by art. 130 C.C.P.

The Court of Appeal indicates that art. 130 C.C.P. provides that service upon a legal person can be made at its establishment in Quebec speaking to a person in charge of said establishment. The CIDREQ indicates that Tycorra has an establishment in Québec, located on Fairway Avenue, Lachine, where the proceedings were served.

As for the person to whom service was made, the Court is of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that he was a person legally in charge of the establishment.

The proceedings were handed over to the president of Tycorra, who chose not to seek legal counsel, alleging his inability to understand French.

The appeal is dismissed.

1698 Investment Inc. (" 1698 ") is a corporation doing business in alternative health care that offers services of acupuncture, tanning, aromatherapy and sale of jewellery. It leases commercial premises from 3280853 Canada inc. ("3280853"). It is now suing its lessor and its director, Albert Adboo, claiming reimbursement of expenses, loss of income, punitive and moral damages.

3280853 filed a cross demand and is claiming from 1698 and from Jane Li and Lo Man Lo Shing, signatories of the lease, unpaid rent and damages. Mr. Adbo alleges lack of privity with 1698 and claims damages.

The evidence indicates that there were numerous water damages and that 3280853 is responsible for damages caused by the obsolescence of the plumbing of its property. However, the lease indicates that unless there is gross negligence from the lessor, the latter shall not be liable for any damages caused to the leased premises. The Court cannot supplement the lease agreement, which is the law between the parties.

1698 did not produce evidence of damages. Being a legal person, it cannot claim moral damages. Moreover, there is no evidence of malicious intent that could justify granting punitive damages.

With respect to the personal liability of Mr. Adboo, the Court confirms that there is no privity between him and 1698. His cross demand is dismissed.

Andro Vachon filed an action against Optimoule Inc. ("Optimoule"), Magalie Jacques, Nicolas Jacques and the Coopérative des travailleurs actionnaires, les Moulistes Experts (" Coop "). His claim is based in part on wrongful dismissal as well as the default of Mr. and Ms. Jacques to issue the shares promised in a written agreement.

Optimoule filed a motion for dismissal and partial dismissal. It alleges that the claim for default of issuing the promised shares arises from a contract to which it is not a party.

The Court indicates that it is clear that the claim regarding the issue of shares arises from undertakings subscribed by Nicolas Jacques and Magalie Jacques. Taken solely, the contract does not justify the conclusions jointly against Optimoule. However, the employment agreement includes a reference to this agreement, which appears to be a condition of employment subscribed by Optimoule. It is therefore not impossible that the trial judge, after hearing the parties, considers that Optimoule assumed, in the employment agreement, the obligation contracted by Magalie and Nicolas Jacques in the contract pertaining to the issue of shares. There is no clear legal situation that could dismiss the contractual liability of Optimoule pertaining to this claim.

The motion is dismissed.

At the beginning of the 80s, Salvatore Parasuco started his jeans business, Santana Jeans, which will later become Parasuco. In 1984, he hired Robert Francovich as independent sales agent in the name of his agency, Robert Francovich ("R.F."). The contractual agreement was then verbal.

In 2001, Mr. Parasuco hired Nino Iannuzzi in order to reorganize the business and manage its growth. It was at that time that all the independent sales agents, including Mr. Francovich, signed a written contract. Parasuco then entered into an impressive growth period that will culminate between 2002 and 2005.

In 2006, the retail sales of clothing began to slow down. The sales decreased considerably and the recession began.

Mr. Francovich's contract terminated and he signed an agreement with Point Zéro. Mr. Francovich is now suing Parasuco. He is claiming an amount of $415,600, representing 12 months of commissions. He alleges that Parasuco terminated their 20-year relationship without any notice. Parasuco pleads that he chose to resign.

The Court is of the opinion that the agreement between a sales agent and a manufacturer is not an enterprise contract which can be terminated without notice but rather a contract sui generis subject of the general rules of obligations of a contract of undetermined duration which entitles to a reasonable compensation following a unilateral termination. Thus, in case of a unilateral termination (without serious cause) of such a contract, the parties must give reasonable prior notice.

The Court also estimates that the contract is an adhesion contract. It was imposed to Mr. Francovich without possibility to consult it in advance or to negotiate the essential provisions.

The Court analyses the testimonial evidence regarding the circumstances of the termination of the relationship. It concludes that Parasuco did not terminate the contract. Rather, it was Mr. Francovich who, afraid of termination due to the situation with another agent, sought a new contract with a new manufacturer.

The action is dismissed.