2021 QCCA 1926, 2021 QCCA 1926

Succession de Bitton 2021 QCCA 1926 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-029807-211 ( 500-14-059084-202 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: December 17, 2021 THE HONOURABLE PETER KALICHMAN, J.A. IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF LATE SAMY BITTON: 500-14-059084-202 APPLICANT COUNSEL daniella damary Mtre Alain Lancry M tre Fady Girgis ( Devine Schachter Polak ) By videoconference RESPONDENT COUNSEL dvir bitton Mtre robert pancer ( Phillips Friedman Kotler ) By videoconference IMPLEADED PARTIES jean-françois milot, retired advocate snir bitton nerly bitton Absent and unrepresented IN THE MATTER OF THE INJONCTION PROCEEDINGS: 500-14-059084-202 APPLICANT COUNSEL

daniella damary Mtre Alain Lancry M tre Fady Girgis ( Devine Schachter Polak ) By videoconference RESPONDENT COUNSEL dvir bitton Mtre robert pancer ( Phillips Friedman Kotler ) By videoconference IMPLEADED PARTIES SAMPRÊT PLUS INC. JACQUES ZNATY, exercising his profession of notary THE ESTATE OF THE LATE SAMY BITTON, C/O DVIR BITTON, in his quality of liquidator Absent and unrepresented DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment terminating the proceeding rendered on November 1, 2021 by the Honourable Serge Gaudet of the Superior Court , District of Montreal (Art. 30 para. 2 and 357 C.p.c. ) .

Clerk at the hearing : Mélanie Camiré Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING 10:04 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. Preliminary remarks. 10:06 Submissions by Mtre Pancer. Submissions by Mtre Lancry. 10:07 The judge addresses to the parties. 10:08 Recess of the hearing. 14:10 Resumption of the hearing. BY THE JUDGE: Judgment – see page 4. 14:11 Conclusion of the hearing.

Mélanie Camiré, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Applicant seeks leave to appeal a judgment rendered on November 1, 2021 by the Superior Court, district of Montreal (the Honourable Serge Gaudet) granting an application to probate a will. [ 2 ] Notwithstanding its application, the Applicant contends that leave is not required because the judgment was not rendered according to the procedure for non-contentious proceedings.

More specifically, the Applicant points out that since the proceedings before the Superior Court were contested, the judgment can be appealed as of right. [1] [ 3 ] The Applicant is correct and leave to appeal is not required under the circumstances. [2] [ 4 ] The Applicant’s appeal was thus regularly formed by the filing of its notice of appeal on December 6, 2021.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED : [ 5 ] TAKES NOTE of the Notice of Appeal filed on December 6, 2021; [ 6 ] DECLARES that the Application for leave to appeal is deemed to have been abandoned, without legal costs, given that at the time the Application was filed, the Applicant was justified in thinking that the right of appeal was unclear. PETER KALICHMAN, J.A.