2022 QCCA 451, 2022 QCCA 451

Purdy c. Haslam 2022 QCCA 451 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-700007-206 ( 565-17-000026-100 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: March 31, 2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS DOYON, J.A. GUY COURNOYER, J.A. FRÉDÉRIC BACHAND, J.A.

APPELLANTS COUNSEL diana purdy steven purdy, in his capacity as liquidator of the estate of Robert purdy Mtre dani ann robichaud ( La boîte juridique ) By videoconference RESPONDENT COUNSEL michael haslam Mtre gérard desjardins ( Deveau Avocats ) By videoconference IMPLEADED PARTY luc bouchard ABSENT AND UNREPRESENTED On appeal from a judgment rendered on July 14, 202 0 by the Honourable Pierre Dallaire of the Superior Court , District of Labelle . NATURE OF THE APPEAL: Property – Immovables – Boundary. Clerk at the hearing : Lesly Ramos Courtroom: Antonio-Lamer HEARING

11:24 Commencement of the hearing. Continuation of the hearing held on March 28, 2022. The parties were excused from appearing in Court. BY THE COURT: Judgment – see page 3. 11:25 Conclusion of the hearing. Lesly Ramos, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The main issue before the Court is whether the trial judge committed a reviewable error when he found that the boundary determination report’s conclusion on the issue of acquisitive prescription was ill-founded in fact and law. [ 2 ] He did not.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention — which largely rests on a selective reading of the Superior Court’s judgment —, the judge did not fail to sufficiently consider the report, nor did he fail to sufficiently consider the evidence on the basis of which the land surveyor prepared his report.

Moreover, he did not make any palpable error when he found that the evidence, including the testimony of the appellants, fell well short of demonstrating that the latter and their predecessors possessed the disputed parcel of land unequivocally and continuously since at least the mid-1940s (articles 922, 2917 and 2918 C.C.Q. ). On the basis of that finding, it was open to him to set aside the report’s analysis and conclusion on the issue of acquisitive prescription: Touchette c.

Camirand , 2021 QCCA 268 , para. 8 . [ 3 ] The appellants’ other grounds of appeal are without merit. [ 4 ] Their contention that the judge erred in finding that the land surveyor should not have addressed the issue of acquisitive prescription rests on a misreading of his reasons. As is clear from those reasons, the judge did not conclude that the land surveyor was wrong to consider the issue of acquisitive prescription, but rather that he was wrong to accept the appellants’ argument on that issue. [ 5 ] The appellants’ contention that the judge applied an incorrect standard of proof is also meritless.

It cannot reasonably be inferred from his use of the terms “ de[s] faits qui ne sont aucunement concluants ” (para. 123) that he applied a more stringent standard than proof on a balance of probabilities. [ 6 ] Furthermore, the judge’s comments regarding various aspects of this case — including the parties’ inability to cooperate with a view to finding an amicable solution, as well as the fact that the proceeding seemed disproportionate to the nature of the dispute and the interests involved — do not indicate that he resolved the issues before him in light of irrelevant considerations.

The appellants have not shown that his disapproval of the parties’ disregard of the guiding principles of procedure, which in the Court’s view was fully justified, tainted his analysis of the issues in dispute. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 7 ] DISMISSES the appeal, with legal costs. FRANÇOIS DOYON, J.A. GUY COURNOYER, J.A.

FRÉDÉRIC BACHAND, J.A.