2010 QCCA 2086, 2010 QCCA 2086

Mariotti Di Paolo c. Lasalle 2010 QCCA 2086 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-020334-108 ( 500-17-052122-093 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: November 18, 2010 THE HONOURABLE NICOLE DUVAL HESLER, J.A. PETITIONER ATTORNEY LUISA MARIOTTI DI PAOLO Personally RESPONDENT ATTORNEY SOPHIE LASALLE Me Éric Potvin LAPOINTE ROSENSTEIN MARCHAND MELANÇON

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT RENDERED ON NOVEMBER 9, 2009, BY THE HON. RICHARD MONGEAU OF THE SUPERIOR COURT DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Clerk: Annick Nguyen Court Room: RC.18 HEARING 10:52 Commencement of the hearing. 10:53 Discussion between the judge and Mrs Di Paolo. 10:58 Suspension. 11:21 Resumption of the hearing. 11:22 Submission by Mrs Di Paolo. 11:47 The judge doesn’t need to hear the Respondent. BY THE JUDGE. Judgment – See page 3.

Annick Nguyen Clerk JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Petitioner seeks leave to appeal a decision of the Superior Court declining her Motion to declare Plaintiff's action abusive and to dismiss it.

She also requested in that Motion that her legal fees be paid by Plaintiff/Respondent. [ 2 ] The judge below gave the following reasons in the Minutes of the hearing. [ 3 ] First, he could not conclude upon examining the pleadings and exhibits that Plaintiff's Requête introductive d'instance was clearly unfounded or frivolous. [ 4 ] Second, he was of the opinion that at this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff's conduct had not been vexatious or in bad faith, nor was is unreasonable or excessive.

[ 5 ] Third, as to the request for legal fees, he saw no reason to grant it. [ 6 ] Petitioner bases her Motion almost entirely on Bill 9, which she calls the "anti-slapp law". She contends that the judge had no right to ignore its provisions, that freedom of expression cannot be curtailed as a result of Bill 9 and that her letter writing was private. To the extent that her letters were made public, she adds that they were not made public by her. [ 7 ] The fact remains that the conditions of

article 29 C.C.P. are not satisfied. The only consequence of the judgment below is that there will be a trial. Petitioner will have a full and fair hearing in the Superior Court. [ 8 ] Having to appear before the Court is not an injustice nor should it deemed to be a prejudice of any kind. [ 9 ] In short, the judgment orders nothing that may not be revisited by the trial judge. [ 10 ] FOR THESE REASONS, the Motion is DISMISSED, with costs. NICOLE DUVAL HESLER, J.A.