Pinard,
J.:—Considering
that
the
Senior
Prothonotary's
decision
involved
the
exercise
of
a
discretion
on
his
part
and
the
general
principle
is
that
the
Court
sitting
on
appeal
from
that
decision
ought
not
to
interfere
with
the
exercise
of
that
discretion
unless
the
party
making
the
appeal
meets
the
burden
of
establishing
or
showing
that
the
exercise
of
that
discretion
was
based
on
a
wrong
principle
or
a
mistaken
application
of
the
law
(see
746278
Ontario
Ltd.
v.
Courtot,
25
F.T.R.
281
at
283);
Considering
that
the
Court
is
not
satisfied
that
the
Senior
Prothonotary
was
clearly
wrong
in
applying
as
he
did
rule
5
of
this
Court
and
article
600
of
the
Quebec
Code
of
Civil
Procedure
to
the
facts
of
this
case
in
relation
with
an
opposition
whereby
the
debtor
demands
the
nullity
in
whole
of
the
seizure
in
execution;
Consequently,
the
application
in
appeal
as
per
rule
336(5)
for
an
order
reversing
the
order
of
the
Senior
Prothonotary
dated
December
3,
1990
is
dismissed
with
costs.
Application
dismissed.
Email this Content