2023 QCCA 1356, 2023 QCCA 1356

Droit de la famille — 231868 2023 QCCA 1356 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-030516-231 ( 500-12-294961-085 ) MINUTES OF HEARING WARNING : Disclosure and circulation prohibited: The Code of Civil Procedure (“ C.C.P .”) provides that, except as authorized by the court, no person shall disclose or circulate any information that would allow a party or a child whose interests are at stake in a proceeding in a family matter to be identified (art. 16 C.C.P .). DATE: October 3, 2023 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE ROBERT M. MAINVILLE, J.A. CHRISTINE BAUDOUIN, J.A. FRÉDÉRIC BACHAND, J.A.

APPELLANT C. R. Unrepresented Absent RESPONDENT COUNSEL P. M. Mtre Narjisse Imaddahen Absent IMPLEADED PARTIES X Y ABSENTS AND Unrepresented On appeal from a judgment rendered on April 25, 2023, by the Honourable Gregory Moore of the Superior Court , District of Montreal . DESCRIPTION: Application to dismiss an appeal and provision for cost (articles 51, 365 and 367 C.p.c .). Clerk at the hearing : René Gutknecht Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault

HEARING Continuation of the hearing held on October 2, 2023. The parties were excused from appearing in Court. BY THE COURT: Judgment – see page 4. René Gutknecht, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The respondent first seeks the

summary dismissal of an appeal brought against a judgment varying child support orders to which the parties had agreed at the time of their divorce. [1] The judge found that a variation order was warranted because of material changes in circumstances which occurred in recent years. [ 2 ] Although the Court is generally reluctant to grant applications for

summary dismissal in family matters, [2] we agree with the respondent that it is appropriate to do so in the present case. [ 3 ] The notice of appeal sets out numerous arguments, most of which attack the integrity of the respondent’s lawyer, question the trial judge’s skills and raise legal issues which have no relevance to the respondent’s application seeking the variation of the child support orders. It does not allege any specific error of fact, law or mixed questions of fact and law on the basis of which the Court could conclude that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success.

These defects were not cured by the representations made by the appellant during the hearing. [ 4 ] Clearly, the appellant is unhappy with the Superior Court’s judgment, especially insofar as it cancels the respondent’s obligation to pay child support to the benefit of the parties’ eldest child, who is now 29 years old and has recently completed bachelor-level university studies.

However, as the Supreme Court recently emphasized, “an appeal is not a litigant’s opportunity for a ‘second kick at the can’, especially in parenting cases where finality is of paramount importance”. [3] [ 5 ] The interest in finality alluded to by the Supreme Court is of paramount importance not only in relation to parenting orders, but also in relation to child support orders. The interests of justice will be best served by ordering the

summary dismissal of this appeal. [ 6 ] The respondent also asks the Court to order the appellant to pay him the sum of $2,000 to cover the legal expenses and disbursements he incurred in the context of the present appeal proceeding. However, he has failed to convince the Court that the appellant had acted abusively by filing her appeal. There is thus no basis to order her to bear his legal fees.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 7 ] GRANTS in part the respondent’s application seeking the dismissal of the appeal and the provision of a suretyship; [ 8 ] DISMISSES the appeal; [ 9 ] DISMISSES the respondent’s request for an order condemning the appellant to reimburse the professional fees and disbursements he incurred; [ 10 ] THE WHOLE without costs, given the nature of the matter. ROBERT M. MAINVILLE, J.A. CHRISTINE BAUDOUIN, J.A.

FRÉDÉRIC BACHAND, J.A.