2018 QCCA 2242, 2018 QCCA 2242

Nwabue c. McGill University 2018 QCCA 2242 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-027476-183 (500-17-098123-170, 500-17-100756-173) DATE: October 19, 2018 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.A. ROGERS AFAM NWABUE APPLICANT – Plaintiff v. McGILL UNIVERSITY ET AL. McGILL UNIVERSITY AS SUSAN CAMPBELL ET AL. RESPONDENTS – Defendants JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The applicant presents two motions. [ 2 ] Applicant has filed a motion for stay of proceedings in Superior Court and to suspend the execution of the judgment of this Court rendered on May 30, 2018 pursuant to

article 390 C.C.P. The judgment dismisses leave to appeal: Nwabue c. McGill University , 2018 QCCA 902 . [ 3 ] It bears noting that he has not yet filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. While he invokes extraordinary circumstances, the explanations are unclear. He fails to convince me of his real desire to perfect his application for the next level of appeal. Assuming, however, that he does have the intention to pursue his appeal, the applicant does not demonstrate that the intended questions to be submitted to the Supreme Court are serious and justify the conclusions he proposes to seek before the Supreme Court. He intends to present the following questions: (

i) Whether the Quebec Court of Appeal, for reaching a judgment on a leave for recusation application, erred in law by applying the common law subjective ‘reasonable apprehension of bias’ test that is in conflict with the Quebec civil law provisions of precise rules that leave little or no room to judicial discretion and, by disregarding the required judicial deference to the Quebec civil law objective categories of circumstances (precise rules) for the recusation or disqualification of a judge as provided for in articles 201 to 203 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure ? (ii) Whether a judge being either a current or former staff, an alumnus, or a governing board member of a legal person-Respondent or its affiliated legal persons does not meet either of the following precise circumstances as intended in the provisions of the Quebec civil law legislation for recusation or disqualification: (a) Article 202(5); ‘a shareholder or an officer of a legal person or a member of a partnership or an association or another group not endowed with judicial personality that is a party to the proceeding,’ or (

b) Article 203; ‘a judge who has or shares the legal person Respondent’s interest in the case’ (emphasis added), as provided for in the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure ? And, whether a judge or his/her law firm, while in practice, having recently represented one of the Respondents as counsel, does not meet the meaning of the precise circumstance intended in the provision in the Quebec civil law legislation for the purpose of recusation or disqualification; (c) Article 202(4); ‘the judge having represented one of the parties;’ as provided for in the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure ? (iii) As the Supreme Court has defined bias as a judge’s state of mind, and given the provisions of

Article 242 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure , whether a litigant or a reasonable person (other than the judge) acting independently could be able to appropriately determine a legally admissible judge’s state of mind without the aid of expert clinical psychological examination, in order to bear the burden of providing the proof of a judge’s state of mind in a recusation or disqualification application where a common law ‘reasonable apprehension of bias’ applies? (iv) Whether a Special Case Management Judge appointed by the order of a Chief or Associate Chief Judge (under

Article 157 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure ) to hear and decide all pending Incidental Applications the parties brought before the Court, by refusing to hear a party’s pending Incidental Application (especially a case-outcome determining application for entry of default judgment) in defiance of the order of the Chief or Associate Chief Judge, has not (

a) violated the judicial ethics, (

b) denied procedural fairness (the right to be heard), (

c) intentionally obstructed access to justice, (

d) prejudiced the party (actual bias) and (

e) denied the party the constitutional protection guaranteed by Sections 7 , 12 , 15(1) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , thus, would

bring the administration of justice into disrepute; eroding the public confidence in the judicial system? (

v) Whether a Court of Appeal refusal to hear a motion/application for permission to file an indispensable new evidence, or for in forma pauperis waiver of court tariffs and State-funded transcript, or any other motion or motions appropriately brought before the court in the course of a proceeding, does not constitute (

a) an obstruction of access to court or to justice, (

b) a deprivation of procedural fairness, (

c) a violation of the provisions of Sections 7 , 12 , 15(1) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and (

d) a violation of

Section 96 of the Constitution Act , 1867? (vi) Whether the failure of a Quebec Court of Appeal, in its judgment, to rule on the other issues raised and conclusions set out for the purpose of obtaining leave, in a leave to appeal application, does not trigger the civil law provisions of articles 345 para 1 and 345(1) of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure for a revocation of that judgment, in order not to bring the administration of justice into disrepute and erode the public confidence in the judicial system? (vii) Whether a partner of a legal person is also the legal person, therefore, ineligible to self-represent or appear as counsel to the legal person Respondent; and whether the Quebec courts, therefore, erred in law and denied the procedural fairness by allowing a self- represented legal person in the court proceedings contrary to the provisions of the Quebec legal professional code of ethics and in conflict with the Supreme Court decisions in such cases? [Transcribed as written] [ 4 ] Second, the applicant files an “Application (motion) for order of the appellate court for the upload of Superior Court documents to plumitif, provision of copies of missing & sealed documents and, for state-funded transcripts” [sic].

More specifically, he seeks the following orders: ORDER that the Superior Court comply fully with the Open Court Principle in all the issues pertaining to the past proceedings and the Court documents in this matter, and throughout any future proceedings.

ORDER that all the Superior Court File Documents be made available and accessible to the general public, any Third Party and the Appellate Courts ORDER that all the Court documents said to be missing from the Court File be returned to the Court File and remain in The Court File until the final disposition of this matter ORDER that all the Electronically filed documents, either via E-mall or otherwise, with any of the past or current presiding Judge or Judges be uploaded to the Superior Court Plumitif (Docket) for access and the benefit of the Public and the Appellate Courts.

ORDER that the Voiced Judgment delivered by Justice Brian Riordan on October 26, 2017, for the Case File 500-17-100756-173 , be published immediately in the same manner Court Judgments are made public for access. ORDER that the September 14, 2017 Superior Court Sealed Documents be made available to the Appellant-Plaintiff or be Unsealed for access to the public or any Third Party.. ORDER State-Funded Transcript of me Court Proceedings and of any missing Court Judgments or Decisions for the Appellant-Plaintiff and for use as Facts supporting Evidence Documents in any further proceedings in this matter.

ORDER that any future Superior Court Hearing Proceedings in this matter be covered by the News Media/Press, and be held during the regular Court Hours in the usual Court Room accessible and known to the general public, specifically, the Montreal Superior Court Room 2.08 . [Transcribed as written] [ 5 ] The applicant has no active file before this Court and in any event, as a judge in chamber, I do not have jurisdiction to grant the orders sought. [ 6 ] I therefore dismiss both motions, with legal costs in favour of the respondents. MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.A.

Rogers Afam Nwabue In person Mtre Kristian Brabander McCARTHY TÉTRAULT For the respondents Date of hearing: October 16, 2018