2013 QCCA 1267, 2013 QCCA 1267

Rissaki c. 9256-8492 Québec inc. (Restaurant Yotis) 2013 QCCA 1267 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-023706-138 ( 500-17-076186-132 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: July 19, 2013 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALLAN R. HILTON PETITIONER ATTORNEY MARY RISSAKI Mtre Judah L. Wolofsky (absent) WOLOFSKY ET ASSOCIÉS RESPONDENT ATTORNEY

9256-8492 QUEBEC INC. (RESTAURANT YOTIS) HELEN RIZIS 9270-8015 QUEBEC INC. (IMPRIMEURS EXCEL-PRINTERS EXCEL) DENIS BEAUDRY MICHAEL HIONIS & LE GROUPE D'INVESTISSEURS GERRY, MIKE & JOHN INC. (G.M. & J. INVESTMENTS GROUP INC.) & 9229-0436 QUEBEC INC. (EXCEL LITHO-LITHO EXCEL) & JOHN (GEORGIOS) HIONIS & ELEFTHERIA (RIA) TZANETAKOS Mtre David Beaudoin (absent) BBK AVOCATS & NOTAIRES INC. Mtre Edward J. Druker (absent) DRUKER NARVEY GREEN SCHWARTZ Mtre Panagiotis Karavoulias (absent) PETER KARAVOULIAS, AVOCATS APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT (Art. 29, 511 C.c.

p) Clerk: Asma Berrak Court Room: RC.18 HEARING Judgment-see page 3. Asma Berrak Clerk

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Mary Rissaki seeks leave to appeal a judgment of the Superior Court that dismissed her application for an order that the respondents pay her a provision for costs of $50,000 to allow her to continue the prosecution of her claim against them. That claim arises principally out of the breakdown of the matrimonial-like relationship established between her and the respondent John (Georgios) Hionis that began in 1987 and was terminated by Mr.

Hionis in 2011. [ 2 ] The parties are involved in a separate court file in which another of the respondent's, Michael Hionis, is seeking injunctive and related relief against her. [1] Michael Hionis the son of John Hionis from his marriage to the respondent Eleftheria (Ria) Tzanetakos. [ 3 ] The hearing in the Superior Court that resulted in the judgment for which leave is now sought lasted 51 minutes, and three minutes later, the motion's judge rendered an oral judgment to the following effect: JUGEMENT ATTENDU QUE le Tribunal est saisi d'une requête de la demanderesse pour provisions pour frais; CONSIDÉRANT QU 'en matière civile, la provision pour frais est octroyée dans des conditions exceptionnelles telles que l'a décidé la Cour d'appel en 2005 dans la cause de Hetu c.

Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes; CONSIDÉRANT QUE les faits du présent dossier sont très différents de ceux que l'on retrouve dans la cause susmentionée, notamment en ce qu'en l'espèce la requête est faite par la demanderesse au tout début de l'instance et qu'il n'y a donc pas de guérilla judiciaire comme ce fut le cas dans l'affaire Hetu; CONSIDÉRANT QUE la demanderesse n'a nullement démontré un état d'épuisement financier qui la priverait de faire valoir ses droits devant le Tribunal; CONSIDÉRANT QU 'il apparaît au paragraphe 92 de son action que la demanderesse a reçu un paiement de cent quatre-vingt- dix mille dollars (190,000 $) lors de la séparation, sans que l'on sache ce qu'il est advenu de cette somme; CONSIDÉRANT QUE le père de la demanderesse est décédé récemment et qu'elle pourrait peut-être hériter d'une ou de plusieurs propriétés en Grèce, sans compter celle dont elle est déjà propriétaire en Grèce; CONSIDÉRANT QUE c'est le choix de la demanderesse de ne pas vendre cette propriété en Grèce, même si elle n'y demeure pas, tout comme c'est son choix de retenir les services d'un procureur qui facture trois-cent-cinquante dollars (350 $) l'heure; POUR CES MOTIFS, LE TRIBUNAL: REJETTE la requête de la demanderesse pour provisions pour frais; FRAIS À SUIVRE. 11:01 Fin de l'audience. [ 4 ] One of the principal reproaches of the petitioner is that the motion's judge refused to hear her testimony, and instead proceeded on the assumption that the facts alleged in her proceeding were true.

Had he heard evidence, she alleges, the motion's judge would never have reached the conclusion he did with respect to several of the considerations of his judgment. [ 5 ] A more significant reproach is that the judgment contains contradictory findings to those of Petras, J. when she adjudicated a motion for an interlocutory injunction in the related file in which the petitioner is the defendant. After hearing testimony, Petras, J. dismissed that application, which sought to expel the petitioner from what had been the family residence.

In the context of interlocutory injunction proceedings, she also characterized the rights of Michael Hionis, who she found to be acting on behalf ("prête-nom") of and for his father John, as appearing "to be somewhat doubtful".

Those apparently "somewhat doubtful" doubtful rights asserted on behalf of John Hionis in the related proceedings are intimately tied to the petitioner's claim against him in the instant case. [ 6 ] She found in particular that John (Giorgios) Hionis was directly responsible, by his mischievous conduct, for the petitioner's current lack of funds, and that she had become economically dependant on him at the time of the separation because of that mischievous conduct.

She also provided Petras, J. with a plausible explanation for the use of the $190,000 received from the sale of her one-half interest in the family residence. [ 7 ] In light of these contradictory conclusions in two judgments involving the same parties, I am of the view that the petitioner's proposed grounds of appeal warrant an examination by a panel of the Court.

[ 8 ] Given articles 29 and 511 C.C.P. ; [ 9 ] Given that there should be case management of the appeal; [ 10 ] Given articles 48 and 49 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal in Civil Matters , which read as follows: 48. Abandonment. Where the appellant’s arguments and documents standing in lieu of the factum are not served and filed within the established time limit, the appeal shall be deemed to be abandoned and

article 503.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply, mutatis mutandis . 49. Foreclosure. Where the respondent’s argument and, if applicable, documents standing in lieu of the factum are not served and filed within the established time limit, the respondent shall be foreclosed from filing and

article 505 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply, mutatis mutandis. THEREFORE, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 11 ] GRANTS leave to appeal; [ 12 ] ORDERS the suspension of proceedings in first instance; [ 13 ] PLACES the case on the role of November 8, 2013 in the Pierre B.

Mignault Court Room for a hearing of 75 minutes, 30 minutes being allocated to the petitioner and a total of 45 minutes to all of the respondents; [ 14 ] ORDERS the appellant, after having served a copy upon the respondent, to file in the office of the Court, no later than August 5, 2013, five copies of a written argument not exceeding 20 pages, of the exhibits that would normally have made up schedules I, II and III of her factum , and her authorities; [ 15 ] ORDERS any respondent who wishes to plead orally as provided for in paragraph [14], after having served a copy upon the appellant, to file in the office of the Court, no later than August 19, 2013, five copies of a written argument not exceeding 20 pages, and any his/her/its/their supplementary proceedings or exhibits and of his/her/its/their authorities; [ 16 ] ORDERS the parties to present their written arguments on 21.5 cm X 28 cm (8 ½ X 11 in.) paper, with line spacing of at least 1.5 lines (except in the case of quotations, which must be single-spaced and indented), and the computer-prepared text shall be in 12- point type, with no more than 12 characters per 2.5 cm, the use of the font ARIAL-12 being strongly recommended; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the documents filed by the parties carry a continuous pagination or tabs, a front cover and a general table of contents; [ 18 ] THE WHOLE with costs to follow the outcome of the appeal.

ALLAN R. HILTON, J.A.