2022 QCCA 1625, 2022 QCCA 1625

Droit de la famille — 222096 2022 QCCA 1625 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-029926-227 ( 505-12-042998-180 ) 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 (arts. 15 and 16 C.C.P .). DATE: December 1, 2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SIMON RUEL, J.A. BENOÎT MOORE, J.A. PETER KALICHMAN, J.A.

APPELLANT COUNSEL M. D. Mtre SIMON RICHTER RESPONDENT COUNSEL B. J. Mtre DANIEL CHARPENTIER ( Daniel Charpentier, avocat ) IMPLEADED PARTY S. L. ABSENT AND UNREPRESENTED On appeal from a judgment rendered on January 18, 2022 by the Honourable Aline U.K. Quach of the Superior Court , District of Longueuil . NATURE OF THE APPEAL: Revocation of the judgment of divorce - Accessory measures . Clerk at the hearing : Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault

HEARING 10:16 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. Justice Ruel presents a brief

summary of the file. 10:17 Representations by Mtre Richter. 10:21 Submissions by Mtre Richter. 11:03 Recess of the hearing. 11:25 Resumption of the hearing. BY THE COURT : judgment – see page 3. 11:26 Conclusion of the hearing.

Robert Osadchuck, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT 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 (arts. 15 and 16 C.C.P .). [ 1 ] This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing an application for revocation of a judgment pronouncing the divorce of the parties’ judgment and homologating an agreement between them on accessory measures. [ 2 ] The appeal raises a variety of grounds, including the possible application of the Indian Act [1] and of the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act [2] , the legality of the agreement on accessory measures and the appellant’s lack of informant consent to that agreement. [ 3 ] However, it is not necessary to address any of those issues to dispose of the appeal since the appellant has failed to convince the Court that the judge erred in ruling that the application for revocation was filed outside the delays and that she had failed to establish an impossibility to act.

At any rate, even if the appellant had filed her application within the delays, the judge committed no error in determining that the appellant had failed to establish grounds for revocation, notably because the evidence she sought to introduce could not have been discovered earlier or would probably have led to a different result. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 4 ] DISMISSES the appeal without legal costs, given the nature of the dispute. SIMON RUEL, J.A. BENOÎT MOORE, J.A. PETER KALICHMAN, J.A.