2016 QCCA 1844, 2016 QCCA 1844

Droit de la famille — 162755 2016 QCCA 1844 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-026449-165 (500-12-307889-117) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: November 11, 2016 THE HONOURABLE MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. APPLICANT COUNSEL L. SH. Mtre BERNARD SYNNOTT Mtre PHILIPPE CHAREST-BEAUDRY ( Fasken Martineau DuMoulin SENCRL, s.r.l. ) RESPONDENT COUNSEL S. S. Mtre robert pancer ( Phillips Friedman Kotler s.e.n.c.r.l.) Mtre nicolas nadeau-ouellet ( Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, S.E.N.C.R.L./s.r.l. ) Mtre JESSICA HARDING (Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, S.E.N.C.R.L./s.r.l.)

DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment rendered in the course of proceedings on November 7, 2016 by the Honourable Francine Nantel of the Superior Court, District of Montreal (art. 31(2), 32 and 357 C.C.P. ) Clerk: Annabel David Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING 9 : 36 Roll call and identification of the parties. Suspension of the hearing. 11 : 46 Resumption of the hearing.

Discussion between the judge and Mtre Synnott. 11 : 51 Mtre Pancer deposits a compendium and Mtre Synnott continues. 12 : 07 Mtre Synnott files a book of authorities and continues. 12 : 12 Mtre Pancer files a book of authorities and begins his representations. 12 : 21 Reply by Mtre Synnott. 12 : 22 Comment by Mtre Pancer. 12 : 23 Suspension of the hearing. 12 : 29 Resumption of the hearing. Judgment – see page 3. 12 : 32 Following the demand of both attorneys, the judge orders the file of the Court of Appeal to be sealed for confidentiality purposes. Conclusion of the hearing.

Annabel David Clerk BY THE JUDGE JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Applicant seeks leave to appeal a judgment of the Superior Court, District of Montreal (the Honourable Francine Nantel), rendered during the trial on November 7, 2016.

The judgment reads as follows: Compte tenu de l’historique du dossier, de la kyrielle d’avocats ayant représenté Madame depuis le début du dossier (plus de 12 avocats), de la demande de suspension de plus de 15 jours pour des vacances des nouvelles procureurs de Madame, en plein milieu du procès, ce qui perturberait l’agenda de tous y compris les témoins, lesquels se sont adaptés aux différentes demandes de Madame depuis le début de l’audition qui était initialement prévue pour le 12 septembre 2016, le Tribunal se voit dans l’obligation de REFUSER la suspension demandée par Me Duval et Me Lapointe.

Madame a tous les droits d’être représentée, mais la règle audi alteram partem connaît des limites que Madame a franchies. [ 2 ] The action in divorce was commenced by Respondent in February of 2011. The plumitif indicates 249 entries. The trial date was set on or around March 2016. A case conference was held on October 14, 2016 and the trial was to commence on October 31, 2016 for two months. The new attorneys of Applicant accepted the mandate on November 3, 2016. Counsel for Respondent tells me that this was the fifth request to postpone since October 15. The judge had already accommodated and warned Applicant.

[ 3 ] Applicant argues that it was not a postponement which was requested but just an adjournment with a view to prepare and finish the trial within the time originally allotted. [ 4 ] I consider the refusal to grant a postponement or an adjournment a case management matter so that

Article 32 C.C.P. provides that no appeal lies from such a decision unless it is demonstrated that the judgment is unreasonable. On its face and in the circumstances of this case, the judgment is hardly unreasonable. The proper administration of justice requires limits to the parties’ conduct which impedes the progress of a matter. If new attorneys (indeed the 13 th attorneys) do not have the availability or ability to continue a matter in progress without interruption and prejudice to the other party, the witnesses and the Court, then these attorneys should not accept the mandate. [ 5 ] I add that even if I were to view the judgment as interlocutory, the appeal of which is governed by

Article 31 C.C.P. , I would not grant leave as I am not convinced, on the record before me, that the judgment causes irremediable prejudice – i.e. that a final judgment would not remedy any possible prejudice. Moreover, the interest of justice and proportionality, which I am required to consider under

Article 18 C.C.P. convinces me that leave should not be granted. FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED : [ 6 ] DISMISSES the motion for leave to appeal, without legal costs, given the nature of the case. MARK SCHRAGER, J.A.