2016 QCCA 80, 2016 QCCA 80

Droit de la famille — 16153 2016 QCCA 80 COUR D'APPEL CANADA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC GREFFE DE MONTRÉAL N o : 500-09-025236-159 (755-04-006814-124) PROCÈS-VERBAL D'AUDIENCE DATE : Le 22 janvier 2016 CORAM : LES HONORABLES JACQUES J. LEVESQUE, J.C.A. MARK SCHRAGER, J.C.A. MARIE-JOSÉE HOGUE, J.C.A. APPELANTE AVOCATE M… Z… Me SONIA HEYEUR INTIMÉ AVOCATE A… G… Me MANON POMERLEAU ( Pomerleau avocats inc.) En appel d'un jugement rendu le 12 mars 2015 par l'honorable Carole Julien de la Cour supérieure, district de d’Iberville. NATURE DE L'APPEL : Garde et droit d’accès – jugement déclarant la détention de l’enfant sans droit et ordonnant son retour

Greffière d’audience : Marcelle Desmarais Salle : Antonio-Lamer AUDITION 10 h 03 Début de la séance. L'honorable Jacques J. Levesque dresse un bref résumé du dossier. 10 h 03 Argumentation par Me Sonia Heyeur. 10 h 12 Fin de l'argumentation de Me Sonia Heyeur. 10 h 12 Suspension de la séance. 10 h 14 Reprise de la séance. Arrêt unanime prononcé par l'honorable Jacques J. Levesque, J.C.A. – voir page 3. Marcelle Desmarais Greffière d’audience PAR LA COUR ARRÊT [ 1 ] Pour les motifs qui apparaîtront à l'arrêt que nous déposerons incessamment, l'appel est rejeté, sans frais de justice vu la nature du dossier. JACQUES J. LEVESQUE, J.C.A. MARK SCHRAGER, J.C.A. MARIE-JOSÉE HOGUE, J.C.A.

Droit de la famille — 16153 2016 QCCA 80 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-025236-159 (755-04-006814-124) DATE: January 22, 2016 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE JACQUES J. LEVESQUE, J.A. MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. MARIE-JOSÉE HOGUE, J.A. M. Z. APPELLANT – Defendant v. A. G. RESPONDENT – Plaintiff REASONS OF THE JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ORALLY ON JANUARY 22, 2016 [1] After proof and hearing had been completed in a prolonged custody case, Appellant removed the minor child to Appellant’s native Czech Republic contrary to the judge’s interim orders.

Appellant revoked her attorney’s mandate by e-mail. Respondent moved for the re-opening of the hearing at which time the judge read Respondent’s affidavit and heard the testimony of the police officers to ascertain that the Appellant had in fact departed with the child to the Czech Republic.

The judge then rendered final judgment awarding custody to the Respondent and only allowed the Appellant’s attorney to cease representing after judgment had been rendered. [ 2 ] The custody order for which Appellant applied on her return to the Czech Republic was initially refused by the Czech Court given the child’s residence in Canada and Appellant was ordered by the Czech Court to return the child to Canada.

We are given to understand that the matter is presently suspended pending appeal. [ 3 ] The sole question raised in the appeal before us is whether the trial judge violated Appellant’s right to be heard by proceeding on the day in question, notwithstanding Appellant’s absence. The merits of the judgment awarding custody to the Respondent are not directly questioned. [ 4 ] The appeal cannot succeed. The record is clear that Appellant was aware of the hearing and thus, was duly summoned within the meaning of

article 5 C.C.P. She was represented by counsel. The proof had been closed but was reopened solely to hear the evidence of the kidnapping committed by Appellant. [ 5 ] Appellant is pleading her own turpitude. If the judge proceeded in her absence, it was Appellant’s own doing. Appellant cannot flaunt interim custody orders and flee the jurisdiction only to complain that the judge should not have proceeded in her absence. [ 6 ] The facts of this case present a wholly different context to that before the Supreme Court of Canada in Kane v. Bd. of Governors of U.B.C. , [1] invoked by Appellant’s counsel.

In that case, evidence was heard without the Appellant being present because he was informed that the case had been taken under advisement. The current situation is totally different and as stated, the lower court was put into the position of proceeding in the Appellant’s absence by her actions. [ 7 ] These are the reasons for the judgment dismissing the appeal at the hearing earlier today. JACQUES J. LEVESQUE, J.A. MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. MARIE-JOSÉE HOGUE, J.A. Mtre Sonia Heyeur

Heyeur avocate For Appellant Mtre Manon Pomerleau Pomerleau avocats inc. For Respondent Date of hearing: January 22, 2016