2012 QCCA 1123, 2012 QCCA 1123

MacDonald Williams c. 9168-2823 Quebec Inc. 2012 QCCA 1123 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-022548-127 (500-02-176766-116) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: June 11, 2012 THE HONOURABLE JACQUES A. LÉGER, J.A. PETITIONER ATTORNEY GERRALD MACDONALD WILLIAMS In person RESPONDENT ATTORNEY 9168-2823 QUEBEC INC. Mtre Richard Benoit

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT RENDERED ON FEBRUARY 22, 2012, BY THE HONOURABLE JEAN-F. KEABLE OF THE QUEBEC COURT DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Clerk: Annick Nguyen Court Room: RC-18 HEARING 10:05 Commencement of the hearing. Submission by M. Williams. 10:08 Comments by Mtre Benoit. 10:09 Continuation of M. Williams' submission. 10:26 Submission by Mtre Benoit. 10:32 Intervention by M. Williams. 10:33 Continuation of Mtre Benoit's submission. 10:37 Reply by M. Williams. 10:44 Suspension. 10:59 Resumption of the hearing. 11:01 BY THE JUDGE. Judgment – See page 3.

Annick Nguyen Clerk JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Applicant is seeking leave to appeal from a judgment rendered on February 22, 2012 by the Court of Quebec, District of Montreal (Honourable Jean-F. Keable), which dismissed his amended motion for suspension of eviction from the dwelling where he reside in Lachine.

[ 2 ] The eviction process initially started with a decision of the Régie du logement (« Régie ») rendered on November 5, 2010, ordering him to pay the landlord $2 700 plus legal interest and the additional indemnity within 20 days, failing which his lease would be terminated and all occupants of the dwelling would be evicted. [ 3 ] Although the wording of appelant's motion is not clear as to whether he became aware of the Keable's decision on February 23 or only when he received it by email on February 27, I will take for granted for the purpose of his motion, that it was filed in a timely fashion. [ 4 ] The trial judge carefully reviewed the various proceedings that followed the Régie's decision, namely: • A motion for leave to appeal the Régie's decision by Judge Veilleux on March 25, 2011 and the motion for judicial review that followed before the Superior Court, dismissed on June 14, 2011 by Justice Marc St-Pierre; • In the meantime, up until July 5, 2011, five different judges of the Court of Quebec rendered various rulings, either suspending or varying said eviction order on procedural grounds; • On November 22, 2011, the deputy clerk issued another writ of eviction in order to correct the former which had a clerical error mentioning erroneously the Régie's decision as being of November 5, 2011, rather than 2010; • Further stay of execution where ordered by the Court, which ultimately extended the delay for eviction to February 14, 2012. [ 5 ] The trial judge then dealt with the amended motion for suspension of the eviction order, concluding that a formal motion to correct the original order is not required, as it is an obvious clerical error and consequently, the motion of applicant for suspension of the eviction is unfounded.

As a result, he dismissed applicant's motion to stay his eviction and authorized the full eviction of the initial Régie's order of November 5, 2010. [ 6 ] Essentially, with his motion this morning, appellant is asking me to revisit the same issues and arguments that were before the trial judge. It is trite law that the role of our Court is limited with respect to leave on appeal and the burden of applicant under articles 26 and 494 C.C.P. is not an easy one.

The duty of the judge in chamber hearing such motions is limited in scope as it is precisely to restrict the type of judgment that might be appealed from pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure. [ 7 ] In the present case, notwithstanding any sympathy for applicant's argument, his motion must fail. Firstly, he has shown no palpable and overriding error by the trial judge. Secondly, even if there existed some errors of the judge, the present matter does not raise issues that meet the test alluded to by my colleague Doyon in Crédit Ford du Canada ltée c.

Industrielle Alliance Pacifique [1] , i.e. one that does constitutes a question of general interest for which leave should be granted. [ 8 ] Lastly, there is a further reason for refusing the grant for leave, which is the modicity of the amounts involved. In view of the proportionality rule now formally enunciated in

section 4.2 C.C.P. as reminded by my colleague Kasirer in Celliers Rosyma inc. c. Urgel Charrette Transport inc . [2] , see also Société en commandite Les bois de Pierrefonds c. Domaine de parc Cloverdale [3] . To sum up, while the applicant may meet the first test of

article 26 C.C.P., his motion does not meet the second, as it cannot be said that the matter at issue is one that should be submitted to the Court: it does not raise inter alia a question of principle, a new issue or a question that has given rise to conflicting judicial precedence requiring the intervention of the Court. FOR THESE REASONS, the undersigned: [ 9 ] DISMISSES the motion, without cost in the circumstances. JACQUES A. LÉGER. J.A.