Case information

Contract — Restitution of prestations — Receipt of payment not due — Revocation of gifts on account of ingratitude — Whether exercise of judge’s discretion to modify scope or modalities of restitution of prestations under art. 1699 para. 2 of Civil Code of Québec is subject to conditions other than existence of undue advantage — Civil Code of Québec, art. 1699.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE) (SEALING ORDER) (CERTAIN INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC)

On January 30, 2015, the applicant Ian Quint ceased working for the real estate development businesses owned by his uncle, the respondent Theodore Quint. After severing his business ties with Theodore Quint and the company controlled by him, the respondent Quintcap Inc., Ian Quint started his own company, the applicant I. Quint Group Inc., to carry on his real estate development activities. Theodore Quint and Quintcap responded by, among other things, bringing an action against Ian Quint and several of his companies for the revocation, on account of ingratitude, of gifts of shares that had been made between 2010 and 2013 through various related companies. The Superior Court allowed the application for revocation of the gifts on account of ingratitude. It ordered restitution of prestations, that is, the return of the shares received as gifts. However, it found that restitution would accord an undue advantage to Theodore Quint and Quintcap, so it ordered that the increase in value of the shares between the gift date and January 30, 2015, be paid to Ian Quint and his companies. The Court of Appeal allowed the incidental appeal filed by Theodore Quint and Quintcap and set aside the Superior Court’s decision to order payment of the increase in value of the shares to Ian Quint and his companies.