2022 QCCA 1767, 2022 QCCA 1767

Droit de la famille — 222450 2022 QCCA 1767 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-030163-224 ( 500-12-336513-175 ) 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: November 9, 2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE, J.A. STÉPHANE SANSFAÇON, J.A.

PETER KALICHMAN, J.A. APPELLANT A. J. ABSENT and unrepresented RESPONDENT Y. T. ABSENT and unrepresented IMPLEADED PARTIES COUNSEL ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Mtre SARAH JIWAN ( Department of Justice Canada ) Absent ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC ABSENT AND UNREPRESENTED On appeal from a judgment rendered on July 8, 2022 , by the Honourable J. Sébastien Vaillancourt of the Superior Court , District of Montreal . DESCRIPTION: Application to dismiss an appeal (Article 365 C.C.P .).

Clerk at the hearing : Lesly Ramos Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 9:30 Commencement of the hearing. Continuation of the hearing held on November 7, 2022. The parties were excused from appearing in Court. BY THE COURT: Judgment – see page 4. Conclusion of the hearing.

Lesly Ramos, 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 ] The appellant, A.

J., has appealed from a judgment rendered on July 8, 2022, by the Superior Court (the Honourable Jean- Sébastien Vaillancourt), granting the parties a divorce, ruling on the division of parental time in regards to their two minor children, ordering the appellant to pay child support, dissolving the matrimonial regime and ordering the partition of the family patrimony. [ 2 ] The appellant raises three broad grounds of appeal, the last of which contains numerous individual grounds. [ 3 ] In the motion before the Court, the respondent asks that the appeal be dismissed on the basis that it has no reasonable chance of success.

For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted and the appeal dismissed. [ 4 ] In her first ground of appeal, the appellant argues that as a result of “compounded procedural and jurisdictional defects resulting in persistent violations of principles of fundamental justice”, the Court should declare null all proceedings, judgments and case management orders rendered by the Superior Court in this file since April 2019.

Over and above the fact that there is no procedural basis to grant such a request, what the appellant is attempting to do is to contest earlier judgments in regards to which there is no longer a right to appeal and which did not, in any event, bind the trial judge. [ 5 ] In the context of the second ground of appeal, the appellant raises questions regarding the constitutionality of modifications to the Divorce Act in the context in which a party is also the subject of criminal proceedings.

However, she seeks no conclusion in this regard and does not explain how these questions constitute grounds of appeal. [ 6 ] Finally, in her third ground of appeal, the appellant raises numerous errors in regards to the judge’s determination of parental time, his calculation of child support payments and expenses and his treatment of the dissolution of the partnership of acquests and the partition of the family patrimony.

More, generally, she asserts that the judge exhibited such a “fundamental disengagement with the actual facts of the case” that the judgment should be viewed as being provisional in nature and not final. [ 7 ] The Court does not agree with that assessment. The judgement sets out a careful and thorough analysis of the evidence and the

arguments submitted and follows a six day trial that was the culmination of five years of litigation. To succeed in any one of these grounds the appellant would have to establish a manifest and overriding error. The appellant clearly disagrees with the judge’s conclusions as well as certain of his factual assessments. However, she identifies no error that would justify intervention by the Court much less the ordering of a new trial which is what she now claims to want. [ 8 ] The Court is thus of the view that the appeal has no reasonable chance of succeeding.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 9 ] GRANTS the motion to dismiss the appeal; [ 10 ] DISMISSES the appeal without legal costs given the nature of the matter. GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE, J.A. STÉPHANE SANSFAÇON, J.A. PETER KALICHMAN, J.A.