2020 QCCA 352, 2020 QCCA 352

Di Dio c. Hydro-Québec 2020 QCCA 352 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-028784-205 (500-22-238101-177) DATE: February 28, 2020 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. GIUSEPPINA DI DIO APPLICANT – Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff v.

HYDRO-QUEBEC RESPONDENT – Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Applicant seeks leave to appeal the judgment of the Court of Québec, District of Montreal (the Honourable Catherine Pilon), rendered from the bench on December 12, 2019 condemning Applicant to pay Respondent $28,434.99 (for electricity consumed at her home) and dismissing Applicant’s cross-demand of $29,107 (for damages arising from the interruption of service at a rental property owned by Applicant). [ 2 ] In appeal, Applicant seeks the reversal of the judgment so as to reduce the condemnation against her to an amount not exceeding $12,000 and to benefit from a condemnation in virtue of the cross-demand of $29,107.

As such, the value of the subject matter in appeal is approximately $46,000 (and not $28,434.99 as alleged by Applicant) but in any event, less than $60,000 so that leave to appeal is required. Such leave is only granted under art. 30 C.C.P. , where a judge of the Court of Appeal “considers that the matter at issue is one that should be submitted to that Court, for example because it involves a question of principle, a new issue or an issue of law that has given rise to conflicting judicial decisions.” [ 3 ] The proposed appeal does not raise any matter which meets this test.

The errors alleged in the motion are largely factual (relating to the evaluation of the evidence). The Applicant failed to prove that the billing in accordance with the metered consumption was erroneous. Also, Applicant alleges that the judge should have taken judicial notice of a class action instituted against Respondent for “overcharging”.

Even if the judge took judicial notice of such action, the class action is pending and provides no defense to Applicant against the claim against her for nonpayment of electricity consumed and measured by the appropriate meter. [ 4 ] The burden of persuasion to obtain leave to appeal is Applicant’s to meet which she has failed to do. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 5 ] DISMISSES the “Application for leave to appeal a judgment terminating the proceedings” with legal costs. MARK SCHRAGER, J.A.

Giuseppina Di Dio Unrepresented Mtre Marie-Andrée Ferland HYDRO-QUÉBEC – AFFAIRES JURIDIQUES For Respondent Date of hearing: February, 28, 2020