2015 QCCA 1969, 2015 QCCA 1969

S.F. c. M.A. 2015 QCCA 1969 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-025202-151 (500-14-042927-137) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: November 23, 2015 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS PELLETIER , J.A. MARTIN VAUCLAIR , J.A. MARK SCHRAGER , J.A. APPELLANT S. F. In person RESPONDENT COUNSEL M. A. REASONABLE PERSONS COUNSEL G. A. P. A. FIRST MIS EN CAUSE COUNSEL THE PUBLIC CURATOR OF QUEBEC, in its capacity as Curator of M.A. Mtre ÉMILIE BOURRET (Filion & associé

s) SECOND MISE EN CAUSE COUNSEL CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE THIRD MIS EN CAUSE COUNSEL D. F. Mtre CHARLES GELBER DESCRIPTION : Motion for the restoration of an appeal (Articles 16 R.C.A.Q. & 502, 509.1 C.C.P.) Clerk: Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 11:28 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. 11:28 Submissions by S. F. 11:31 Submissions by Mtre Gelber. 11:43 Reply by S. F. 11:52 Recess. 12:09 Resumption of the hearing. 12:09 By the Court: judgment – see page 3. Robert Osadchuck Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT

[ 1 ] The appellant, who represents herself, has not filed her factum. She seeks restoration of her appeal after the certificate of abandonment of an appeal was issued by the Office of the Court. [ 2 ] She claims that the deputy clerk had not contacted her before issuing the certificate. In fact, she was waiting for a further motion from another party before filing her documents. The appellant asks for a further 30-day delay to perfect her appeal, although she has already benefited from 30 days since the filing of her motion. [ 3 ] The appellant’s confusion apparently results from a prior judgment of this Court, which dismissed a motion for the

summary dismissal of the appeal and stated that the mis en cause was not precluded from making a motion for dismissal based on

article 501 CCP. Thus, the appellant understood that her delay to file her factum would commence only after the judgment on such other motion. [ 4 ] Again, the appellant has still not perfected her appeal. It is not the responsibility of the Office of the Court to communicate with a defaulting party. Further, her confusion on the delay is caused by a misinterpretation of the law which cannot constitute an impossibility to act. [ 5 ] The Court would add that it is not in the interest of justice that this appeal should continue. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 6 ] DISMISSES the motion, with costs. FRANÇOIS PELLETIER, J.A. MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.A. MARK SCHRAGER, J.A.