2015 QCCA 483, 2015 QCCA 483

Plousos Honey c. Honey 2015 QCCA 483 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-025092-156 (500-17-054656-098) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: March 12, 2015 THE HONOURABLE YVES-MARIE MORISSETTE, J.A. PETITIONERS STELLA PLOUSOS HONEY JOANNE HONEY ROBERT SHAMSHOUM In person In person In person RESPONDENTS COUNSEL ROXANNE HONEY TERENCE J. MCQUILLAN Absent Absent DESCRIPTION: Motion of defendants for permission to appeal an interlocutory judgment rendered on February 6, 2015 by the Honourable Helene LeBel from the superior Court, district of Montreal. (Art. 259 & 511 C.C.P.) Clerk: Asma Berrak Courtroom: RC-18

HEARING 10 :34 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of the parties. Submission by Mr. Shamshoum. 10:39 Judgment-see page 3. Conclusion of the hearing. Clerk BY THE JUDGE JUDGMENT [ 1 ] This motion for leave to appeal brought by the petitioners pertained to a judgment of February 6, 2015, which was rendered orally by Madam Justice Le Bel of the Superior Court, district of Montreal. I dismissed the motion at the hearing, reasons to follow; they are set out below. [ 2 ] These proceedings before Justice Le Bel were interlocutory and arose in a case which began in the Superior Court in November of 2009.

They concerned three separate motions, described in these terms in the minutes of the hearing: “ requête et ordonnance terminer mandate liquidateur, req autorisation évaluer immeuble et vendre, req autorisation évaluer immeuble et vendre ” . [ 3 ] The judgment, in its entirety, reads as follows: JUGEMENT: Pour les motifs exprimés verbalement et enregistrés numériquement, LE TRIBUNAL : REPORTE au 19 mars 2015, en salle 2.16 , la Requête aux fins de terminer le mandat du Liquidateur; D’ici là, ORDONNE à Me Nguyen de produire sa comparution, de transmettre à ses confrères les affidavits à l’appui de sa requête et de préciser l’identité des requérants dans la requête; ACCORDE les deux autres requêtes en autorisation d’évaluation et de vente, selon leurs conclusions : en précisant que les évaluations doivent se faire dans les trente jours; ÉMET UNE ORDONNANCE DE SAUVEGARDE demandant à Me McQUILLAN de continuer dans ses fonctions comme Liquidateur de la succession de Monsieur HONEY; ORDONNE à Monsieur Robert SHAMSHOUN [1] de s’abstenir de poser quelque geste que ce soit pour nuire à, menacer ou empêcher la liquidation de procéder comme il se doit;

ACCORDE la remise de l’audition prévue pour le début de mars dans le dossier portant le numéro 500-17-054656-098 , étant donné l’état de la liquidation de la succession et les ordonnances que le Tribunal vient d’émettre et ORDONNE que la cause soit référée au Maître des rôles pour fixer une nouvelle date d’audition; FRAIS À SUIVRE. [ 4 ] As always in a motion for leave to appeal, a plausible assertion, properly delineated and explained, of an error of law or of a palpable and overriding error of fact in the judgment below, capable of causing the reversal of said judgment, is a prerequisite for granting leave to appeal. [ 5 ] Reverting to the minutes of the hearing below, it is also apparent that, at 11:31 on February 6, after a first interruption by an unidentified person present in the courtroom, Justice Le Bel warned Mr Robert Shamshoum that he might be found in contempt of court.

Mr Shamshoum was then escorted out of the courtroom by security guards. There may have been further interruptions for the minutes also state that, at 11:35, Justice Le Bel “demande au constable de ne plus laisser monsieur Robert SHAMSHOUN entrer dans la salle d’audience”. [ 6 ] The motion for leave to appeal which I heard this morning was presented by Mr. Shamshoum on his own behalf, but it also bore the names of his wife Joanne Honey and of his mother-in-law Stella Plouhos Honey as co-petitioners. All three were present in person and were not assisted by counsel.

They did not append to their motion a transcript of the reasons given orally by Justice Le Bel from 11:18 to 11:32 on February 6. Although it may be inferred from the motion that it had been properly served on Mtre Elie Chahwan, identified in the minutes of February 6 as counsel for “Honey Joanne et al.”, as well as on Mtre Jacob Rothman, also identified in the same minutes as counsel for “Honey Joanne et al.”, neither of these counsel was present today in the Court of Appeal. [ 7 ] The motion as formulated is for the most part unintelligible, as were the explanations that Mr.

Shamshoum proceeded to offer orally in support of it. An earlier judgment of May 2012 by Madam Justice Marcelin was said by him to be flawed in some fundamental way [2] . This judgment, however, was neither revoked nor challenged on appeal, and the matter it resolves is now res judicata . As regards the judgment of February 6, it may be, if I understood Mr. Shamshoun correctly, that the petitioners are in possession of information which might, or might not, provide a basis for a motion to have it revoked; this said, an appeal, in my view, would not be the appropriate procedure for debating these issues.

Furthermore, as Justice Le Bel’s judgment continues to the 19 th of March the hearing on the motion to terminate the liquidator’s mandate, and “ ORDONNE que la cause soit référée au Maître des rôles pour fixer une nouvelle date d’audition”, it is my considered opinion that the ends of justice will be far better served if the matter is addressed in the Superior Court and if the record is perfected for a possible future appeal from a final judgment. YVES-MARIE MORISSETTE , J.A.