2015 QCCA 88, 2015 QCCA 88

Rehmat c. Acoustikalab inc. 2015 QCCA 88 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-024841-140 (500-22-209031-148) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: January 15, 2015 THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE MANON SAVARD PETITIONER COUNSEL MICHAEL REHMAT Mtre bruce taub ( Exellence Partner Canada Inc. ) RESPONDENT COUNSEL ACOUSTIKALAB INC. Mtre Claudia maheu ( Azran & associés avocats inc. ) DESCRIPTION: Motion for leave to appeal (Articles 26 & 494 C.P.C .) Clerk: Asma Berrak Courtroom: RC.18

HEARING 10:37 Beginning of hearing. Identification of counsel. Submission by Mtre Taub. 10:51 Submission by Mtre Maheu. Suspension. 11:02 Resumption. Judgment-see page 3. 11:05 Conclusion of hearing. Clerk BY THE JUDGE JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Pursuant to

section 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure , petitioner seeks for leave to appeal a judgment rendered by the Court of Quebec for the District of Montreal (the Honourable Nathalie Chalifour) on October 24, 2014. [ 2 ] The trial judge dismissed his motion for revocation of the judgment rendered by default on April 7, 2014 by the assistant clerk condemning petitioner to pay to respondent $ 17,444.67 with interest and additional indemnity. She concluded that the default judgment was a result of petitioner’s behaviour.

In any event, in a obiter , she analyzed the merit of the proceedings instituted by respondent and concluded that the condemnation of petitioner as stated in the default judgment was well-founded. [ 3 ] Petitioner raises various grounds of appeal by which he essentially contests the conclusions of fact of the trial judge. [ 4 ] I am of the view that the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed. [ 5 ] Petitioner had failed to establish that his motion raises a question of principle, a new issue or a question of law that has given rise to conflicting judicial precedents, as is required under

section 26, al. 2 of the C.C.P ., the issue being strictly limited to the application of the revocation principles and the defence of an “action sur compte”. As for the errors of facts alleged by petitioner, should there be any, they cannot justify leave to appeal: [1] [6] Plutôt, la requête soulève essentiellement des questions de fait et d'appréciation de la preuve, sans portée générale.

Ces questions ne sont pas de celles qui justifient l'octroi d'une permission d'appel aux termes du second alinéa de l'article 26 C.p.c., tel que l'interprète la jurisprudence. [7] En effet, sur les questions de fait, seules des erreurs manifestes et dominantes pourraient, selon le standard d'intervention reconnu par la Cour suprême du Canada, permettre l'intervention de la Cour d'appel.

Or, le requérant n'a pas réussi à établir que le jugement de première instance présentait à cet égard des faiblesses dont on pourrait soutenir raisonnablement qu'elles constituent, même en apparence seulement, des erreurs manifestes et dominantes. [8] Il ne s'agit pas non plus d'un cas où le requérant a établi que le jugement est entaché de failles telles qu'il serait nécessaire, dans l'intérêt de la justice, d'accorder la permission.

Malheureusement pour le requérant, les moyens énoncés dans la requête n'ont pas de chance raisonnable de succès sur le fond et cela fait obstacle, ici, à ce qu'une permission d'appel soit accordée. FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 6 ] DISMISSES the motion for leave to appeal; [ 7 ] WITH costs.

manon savard, J.A.