2013 QCCA 824, 2013 QCCA 824

Hu c. Montréal (Office municipal d'habitation de) 2013 QCCA 824 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL N o : 500-09-023483-134 ( 500-80-023643-126 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: May 6, 2013 Me Julie Devroede, assistant clerk PETITIONER/APPELLANT HONG ZHI HU In person RESPONDENT ATTORNEY OFFICE MUNICIPAL D'HABITATION DE MONTRÉAL Mtre Éric Martineau OFFICE MUNICIPAL D'HABITATION DE MONTRÉAL MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR SUBMITTING FACTUM Clerk : Asma Berrak Courtroom: RC.18

HEARING 8 h 58 : Beginning of the hearing. 8 h 58 : Submissions by Mr. Hong Zhi Hu. 9 h 01 : Representations by Mtre Éric Martineau. 9 h 04 : Reply by Mr. Hong Zhi Hu. 9 h 07 : The motion is taken under advisement. 9 h 08 : End of the hearing. Asma Berrak Clerk JUDGMENT [ 1 ] I am seized with the appellant's motion to extend the time to file his factum. In his written motion, the appellant requested to extend the delay to 180 days in total, thereby requesting an extension of 60 days.

At the hearing, the appellant amended his motion to request that his delay be extended until October 15 th , 2013. [ 2 ] The appellant submits three reasons to justify this request. First, he says his sister is seriously ill, and for this reason he will be going to China to see his family. Secondly, the appellant explains that he suffers from a disability in his right arm, which impedes his work considerably.

Finally, after filing the Inscription in Appeal, the appellant was busy preparing for term exams and papers and therefore could not dedicate enough time to work on his factum. [ 3 ] Counsel for the respondent opposes this motion. Regarding the appellant's first reason, he replies that there is no proof of his sister's alleged illness. He adds that the appeal was brought irregularly. [ 4 ] I will dispose of this last argument immediately, as the clerk of the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the appeal [1] .

Furthermore, the chances of success of the appeal are not relevant to the analysis of the motion for extension. [ 5 ] The reasons submitted by the appellant, though serious, do not constitute exceptional circumstances owing to the nature of the case, as required by

section 503.1 C.C.P. to grant an extension for a period exceeding 30 days. [ 6 ] Nevertheless, the appellant has submitted proof that he will be out of the country from May 14 th , 2013 to September 10, 2013. [ 7 ] Given the circumstances, I am of the opinion that granting an extension of 60 days is reasonable and is in the interest of justice, in order to avoid the presentation of a second motion for extension by the appellant [2] .

FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 8 ] GRANTS the motion, in part; [ 9 ] EXTENDS the delay to file appellant's factum until October 1 st , 2013; [ 10 ] THE WHOLE , with costs to follow the outcome of the case. Me Julie Devroede, assistant clerk