2020 QCCA 1095, 2020 QCCA 1095

Hrabovskyy c. Attorney General of Quebec 2020 QCCA 1095 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-029000-205 ( 500-17-110370-197 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: August 31, 2020 THE HONOURABLE MANON SAVARD, C.J.Q.

APPLICANT Volodymyr Hrabovskyy ABSENT AND UNREPRESENTED RESPONDENTS COUNSEL ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC Mtre ANDRÉA BOIVIN-CLAVEAU Mtre DAVID TREMBLAY ( Ministère de la Justice (DGAJ) ) Absent Attorney general of Canada Mtre JESSICA PIZZOLI ( Department of Justice, Canada ) Absent DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment rendered in the course of the proceeding on July 16, 2020 by the Honourable Mr. Justice Julien Lanctôt of the Superior Court , District of Montreal (Article 31 C.C.P. ). Application to request directives (Article 369 C.C.P. ).

Clerk at the hearing : Anne Dumont Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING

Continuation of the hearing held on August 27, 2020. The parties were excused from appearing in Court. BY THE JUDGE : Judgment – see page 3. Anne Dumont, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] On July 16, 2020, the Superior Court dismissed the Applicant’s motion to declare the Attorney General of Quebec and the Attorney General of Canada (the “Attorneys General”) in default and to set his case down for judgment (art. 175 C.C.P. ).

The motions judge concluded that, given the suspension of delays related to the pandemic, the Attorneys General were not in default to respect the case protocol determined by Hélène Langlois, J.S.C. on March 11, 2020. He fixed the hearing dates for the motions to dismiss of the Attorneys General on October 5 and 6, 2020, on which dates the Applicant’s motion for default will also be argued, as decided by Langlois, J.S.C. Finally, the motions judge issued various case management measures in view of said hearing. [ 2 ] The Applicant seeks leave to appeal said decision.

He seems to argue that the motions judge’s decision is in violation of what he referred to as being the “Agreements on Social Security Canada/Québec-Norway and Humanitarian Treaties” under which he should be recognized as “the recipient of social benefits and social security”. The motions judge erred by applying the provisions of the Civil Code of Procedure . [ 3 ] The Applicant’s grounds for appeal are unclear. Suffice it to say that he did not convince me of the existence of any potential error that could justify the Court’s intervention, whether his motion is subject to

article 31 or

article 32 of the Civil Code of Procedure . The Superior Court judgment does not determine part of the dispute between the parties nor does it cause irremediable injury to the Applicant. The parties will have the opportunity to debate the various motions on October 5 and 6, 2020, in conformity with the case protocol. The judgment is also reasonable in light of the guiding principles of procedure. [ 4 ] In short, I conclude that leave to appeal should be denied, with costs.

In this context, the motion for directives becomes moot and will therefore be dismissed, but without costs since it was not argued by the parties. FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 5 ] DISMISSES the motion for leave to appeal, with the legal costs; [ 6 ] DISMISSES the motion for directives since it is moot, without legal costs. MANON SAVARD, C.J.Q.