2022 QCCA 454, 2022 QCCA 454

Daoud c. Rondeau 2022 QCCA 454 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-029871-225 ( 705-22-019307-204 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: March 29, 2022 THE HONOURABLE PETER KALICHMAN, J.A. APPLICANT Mounir Daoud ABSENT and unrepresented RESPONDENT COUNSEL André Rondeau Mtre SIMON-PIERRE DAVIAULT ( Ratelle Ratelle ) Absent DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment terminating the proceeding rendered on December 13, 2021 by the Honourable Patrick Choquette of the Court of Québec , District of Joliette (Art. 30 para 2 and 357 C.C.P. and art. 31 C.C.P. ) .

Clerk at the hearing : Mélanie Camiré Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING Continuation of the hearing held on March 28 th , 2022. The parties were excused from appearing in Court. BY THE JUDGE: Judgment – see page 3.

Mélanie Camiré, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Applicant, Mr. Daoud, seeks leave to appeal from a judgment rendered on December 13, 2021 by the Court of Quebec in the district of Joliette (the Honourable Patrick Choquette) granting in part the action in damages brought against him by Respondent, André Rondeau, and dismissing his cross-demand. [ 2 ] The judgment was rendered in the context of a dispute over Mr. Rondeau’s cultivation of agricultural lands belonging to Mr. Daoud. More specifically, Mr. Rondeau claimed the value of the soy that he planted but that he was prevented from harvesting in 2016.

Mr. Daoud denied having harvested the soy himself and claimed damages representing the use of his land by Mr. Rondeau from 2012 to 2016. [ 3 ] The Judge granted Mr. Rondeau’s action principally because he found his version of events more credible than that of Mr. Daoud. However, he reduced the claim to take account of the fact that Mr. Rondeau had only been authorized to cultivate a portion of the land. In total, Mr. Daoud was ordered to pay 5 850 $. [ 4 ] The Judge dismissed Mr. Daoud’s cross-demand.

He determined that the claims brought by him were either prescribed or had already been ruled on when aspects of the dispute were submitted to and adjudicated by the Small Claims Division of the Court of Quebec in 2019 (the « 2019 Judgment »). * * * [ 5 ] Mr. Daoud seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the Judgment which ordered him to pay damages to Mr. Rondeau. His proposed grounds of appeal do not touch on the dismissal of his cross-demand. [ 6 ] Because the amount in dispute is below $ 60,000, Mr. Daoud requires leave to appeal. In accordance with

article 30 C.C.P ., leave in such a case will only be granted where a judge of the Court of Appeal « considers that the matter at issue is one that should be submitted to that Court, for example because it involves a question of principle, a new issue or an issue of law that has given rise to conflicting judicial decisions . » [ 7 ] The Application raises no such issue. [ 8 ] Mr. Daoud argues that the Judge erred in granting the action because (

i) he essentially sat in appeal of and overturned the 2019 Judgment; (ii) he condemned him to pay damages despite the fact that he did nothing wrong; and (iii) he allowed illegal evidence into the record. Mr. Daoud also suggests that racism played a factor in the Judge’s decision but, by his own admission, this assertion is based on his “feeling” and not any evidence that he can point to. [ 9 ] The questions raised in the proposed appeal are no doubt of importance to Mr. Daoud, who feels strongly that justice was not served, but that is not enough for leave to be granted. Mr.

Daoud has failed to identify an issue « that should be submitted to the Court of Appeal » as that phrase has been interpreted in the jurisprudence. More specifically, the issues Mr. Daoud seeks to raise in appeal do not involve a question of principle, a new issue or an issue of law that has given rise to conflicting judicial decisions. FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED : [ 10 ] DISMISSES the Application for leave to appeal with legal costs. PETER KALICHMAN, J.A.