2021 QCCA 1746, 2021 QCCA 1746

A c. Social Worker 1 2021 QCCA 1746 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-08-000552-218 ( 500-17-113123-205 )(500-24-000351-204)(500-12-339456-182) (525-41-032962-177) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: November 15, 2021 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. BENOÎT MOORE, J.A. PETER KALICHMAN, J.A. APPELLANT A PRESENT IN PERSON AND UNREPRESENTED RESPONDENT COUNSEL [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , ès quality as DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF CIUSSS A Mtre ISABELLE F.

LORANGER Mtre georgia limperis ( Legal Affairs CIUSSS ODIM ) B Mtre MYLÈNE LEMMEL Mtre EVELYNE BESSETTE ( Lemmel Avocate inc .) IMPLEADED PARTY (CHILD) COUNSEL X Mtre AUDE BASTIEN ( Aude Bastien, avocate ) On appeal from a judgment rendered on August 27, 2021 by the Honourable Babak Barin of the Superior Court , District of Montréal . DESCRIPTION: Application to dismiss an appeal ( Articles 85 and 115 of the Youth Protection Act , L.R.Q. c. P-34.1 ),

article 33 of the Civil Code of Quebec , articles 18 and 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure and articles 8 and 59 of the Civil Practice Regulation (Court of Appeal) Clerk at the hearing : Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault

HEARING 12:25 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of the parties. 12:25 Mtre Loranger has nothing to add to her motion. 12:27 Submissions by Ms. A. 12:42 Recess of the hearing. 12:46 Resumption of the hearing. 12:46 Judgment – see page 4. Robert Osadchuck, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Respondent seeks the dismissal of the appeal filed by Appellant by way of a notice dated September 20, 2021, where she purports to appeal the decision rendered on August 27, 2021 by the Superior Court, District of Montreal (the Honourable Mr. Justice Babak Barin).

The Superior Court was sitting as the appeal court of the Court of Québec in virtue of s. 100 of the Youth Protection Act [1] (“ YPA ”). Justice Barin dismissed Appellant’s recourse in appeal and judicial review of the decisions of the Cour du Québec involving her minor daughter. [ 2 ] S. 115 YPA provides the possibility of a further appeal from the Superior Court to this Court with leave of a judge of this Court, where the party “shows a sufficient interest to warrant a decision on a question of law”. No leave has been obtained nor even sought.

Accordingly, the appeal is not validly instituted and should be dismissed. [ 3 ] Moreover, the notice of appeal fails to clearly identify any error of law in the Superior Court judgment which merits the granting of leave. Rather, the notice repeats the grounds invoked before the Superior Court, where Appellant appears to have rehashed the case presented to the Court of Québec. As such, if leave to appeal to this Court were sought, it should not be granted. [ 4 ] Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed.

FOR ALL THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE COURT: [ 5 ] GRANTS the application to dismiss an appeal; and [ 6 ] DISMISSES the appeal; [ 7 ] THE WHOLE without costs given the nature of the proceedings. MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. BENOÎT MOORE, J.A. PETER KALICHMAN, J.A.