2014 QCCA 1726, 2014 QCCA 1726

Droit de la famille — 142298 2014 QCCA 1726 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-024474-140 ( 500-12-312313-129 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: September 18, 2014 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NICHOLAS KASIRER , J.A. PETITIONER COUNSEL B Mtre Jacqueline sanderson RESPONDENT COUNSEL C Mtre pascale nolin ( Robinson Sheppard Shapiro sencrl ) DESCRIPTION: Amended motion of appellant to request an extension to file factum due to mediation (Art. 505 C.C.P.) Clerk: Nadia Samy Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING

9:40 Commencement of the hearing. Discussion between the Judge and Mtre Sanderson. 9:47 Submissions by Mtre Nolin. 9:55 Reply by Mtre Sanderson. 10:00 Discussion between Judge and counsel. 10:07 Recess. 10:13 Resumption. Discussion between Judge and counsel. 10:15 Judgment – see page 3. End of hearing.

Clerk BY THE JUDGE JUDGMENT [ 1 ] In connection with the appeal she has brought before this Court from a judgment in divorce rendered by the Superior Court, District of Montreal (the Honourable Paul Mayer) on May 2, 2014, appellant has filed an amended motion to extend the time limit to file her factum. [ 2 ] The motion is contested. [ 3 ] I observe the inscription in appeal was filed late. Special leave to appeal was granted by the Court on July 11, 2014 by reason of an error of counsel.

At that time, the file was placed on the accelerated roll and the appellant’s factum was to be filed by September 5, 2014. [ 4 ] The parties sought to settle the dispute through the Court’s mediation program on July 11, 2014.

Mediation proved unsuccessful, a fact recorded in the docket on September 9, 2014. [ 5 ] Parties must be diligent in prosecuting an appeal, both as a matter of courtesy to one another and as officers of the court. [ 6 ] While the application for mediation does suspend time limits (art. 508.1 C.C.P.), it is plain to me that the appellant is not prosecuting the appeal with all due dispatch. [ 7 ] In the circumstances, and mindful that this is a family matter in which issues of procedure need to be considered with flexibility, I am of the view that the interests of justice nevertheless justify the extension of the appellant’s time limit, but that in fairness to the other side and the to the Court, the new date should be set peremptorily.

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 8 ] GRANTS the amended motion in part; [ 9 ] EXTENDS the time period for filing the appellants factum until October 24, 2014 at 4:30 p.m ., that date being peremptory; [ 10 ] FIXES anew the date for filing of respondent’s factum on November 24, 2014 at 4:30 p.m .; [ 11 ] SETS the date of the hearing on January 15, 2015 , in Courtroom Antonio-Lamer at 9:30 a.m . [ 12 ] THE WHOLE , without costs given the nature of the dispute. NICHOLAS KASIRER , J.A.