2017 QCCA 1771, 2017 QCCA 1771

Lichtman c. Royal Bank of Canada 2017 QCCA 1771 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-026862-177 (500-17-086825-158) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: November 6, 2017 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE NICOLE DUVAL HESLER , C.J.Q. GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE , J.A. MARK SCHRAGER , J.A. APPELLANT JOAN LICHTMAN IN PERSON RESPONDENT COUNSEL ROYAL BANK OF CANADA Mtre MARY-PIER MARCHETERRE (Gowling WLG (Canada) S.E.N.C.R.L., s.r.l.)

On appeal from a judgment rendered on May 16, 2017 by the Honourable Justice Pierre-C. Gagnon of the Superior Court, District of Montreal DESCRIPTION : Application for judicial recusal due to conflicts of interest and demonstrated bias against unrepresented litigant Respondent’s application to dismiss the appeal (Article 365 C.C.P .) Application to declare Appellant Joan Lichtman quarrelsome and vexatious litigant (Articles 55 C.C.P . and 13 and 15 of Civil Practice Regulation (Court of Appeal) ,

Chapter C-25.01 , r.10) Application for sanctions for abuse of process and contempt of Court (Articles 51 and 58 C.C.P.) Clerk: Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 10:30 Commencement of the hearing. Mr. Daniel Fournier, interpreter, is present for Mrs. Lichtman. 10:30 On the Application for Recusation: judgment - see page 4. 10:35 Recess. 10:44 Resumption of the hearing. 10:44 Submissions by Mrs.

Lichtman on the Application to Dismiss the appeal. 10:54 Submissions by Mrs Lichtman on the Application for Sanctions for Abuse of Process and Contempt of Court. 11:04 Recess. 11:38 Resumption of the hearing. 11:38 By the Court: judgment – see page 4. 11:41 Conclusion of the hearing. Robert Osadchuck

Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT On the Application for recusation: [ 1 ] The law is settled that Judges who have heard a party before, or even who have dismissed a party’s proceedings in the past cannot be recused on that ground. [ 2 ] Therefore, the Application for recusation is DISMISSED , with legal costs and without hearing the parties. On the Motion to dismiss the appeal: [ 3 ] The appeal of the judgment dismissing Ms. Lichtman’s application to annul the sale and seizure of her former residence is a matter of execution and therefore required prior leave under paragraph 30 (8) C.C.P.

Such leave was neither sought nor granted. [ 4 ] As to the aspect of the quarrelsomeness of Appellant, the content and drafting of the Notice of Appeal only serve to confirm the conclusions of the Superior Court judge declaring the appellant a quarrelsome litigant.

Moreover, in its judgment of August 2 nd , 2016, this Court put Appellant on notice of such behaviour as follows: [7] Appellant should be advised that judicial proceedings do not provide a license to use inappropriate language and that persisting in such conduct may result in the sanctions foreseen by the legislation and rules dealing with quarrelsome conduct before the Courts. Appellant would be well advised to take due notice of this. [ 5 ] We find nothing in the notice of Appeal that could lead us to interfere with the exercise of the trial judge’s discretion in this matter.

Accordingly, the appeal of that part of the judgment has no reasonable chance of success. [ 6 ] The Motion to dismiss the appeal is therefore GRANTED and the appeal DISMISSED , without legal costs, as the motion was filed outside of delays. On the Application for Sanctions presented by the Appellant: [ 7 ] That application is nothing more than a written contestation of the Motion to Dismiss the Appeal and was not preceded by any request for a contempt citation as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure . It must also be DISMISSED without legal costs.

On the Application to declare the Appellant quarrelsome and vexatious: [ 8 ] The appeal having been dismissed, that Application is now without object and is also DISMISSED without legal costs. NICOLE DUVAL HESLER, C.J.Q. GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE, J.A.

MARK SCHRAGER, J.A.