2024 QCCA 184, 2024 QCCA 184

Carby-Samuels c. Ville de Gatineau 2024 QCCA 184 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-030819-239 ( 550-17-012903-231 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: February 12, 2024 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.A. STÉPHANE SANSFAÇON, J.A. JUDITH HARVIE, J.A.

APPELLANT COUNSEL Raymond Carby-Samuels Unrepresented By videoconference RESPONDENTS COUNSEL Ville de Gatineau MATHIEU BRAZEAU GUILLAUME CHOQUETTE-BUSSIÈRE JONATHAN DESJARDINS NICOLAS GAGNON SHAWN MAHAR Mtre Mathieu Daponte ( DHC ) Mtre SARAH NADEAU-LABBÉE ( Ville de Gatineau ) By videoconference On appeal from a judgment rendered on May 24, 2023, by the Honourable Carole Therrien of the Superior Court, District of Gatineau . DESCRIPTION: Motion to dismiss the appeal (Art. 365 C.p.c. ). Clerk at the hearing : Ariane Simard-Trudel Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 10:09 Commencement of the hearing.

Identification of counsel. Preliminary remarks by the Court.

10:11 Submissions by Mr. Samuels on a preliminary objection. 10:13 Discussion between the Court and Mr. Samuels. The Court invites Mr. Samuels to argue after the petitioner. 10:20 Submissions by Mtre Daponte. 10:21 Mtre Daponte resume his submissions. 10:36 Reply by Mr. Samuels. 10:42 Discussion between the Court and Mr. Samuels. 10:52 Recess of the hearing. 11:13 Resumption of the hearing. BY THE COURT : Judgement – see page 3. 11:16 Conclusion of the hearing.

Ariane Simard-Trudel, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Court is seized of a motion to dismiss an appeal against a judgment of May 24, 2023, rendered by the Superior Court (Justice Carole Therrien), district of Gatineau, that dismissed the appellant’s request that the Minister of Justice provides him with a French-English interpreter. [ 2 ] The appeal concerns a judgment rendered in the course of a proceeding, and therefore falls within the criteria of

article 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure . Thus, it requires an application for leave to appeal. The Court notes that none has been filed. Notwithstanding, the Court would have raised the question on its own initiative, as permitted by

section 365 C.C.P. because the appeal is improperly initiated. This is, by itself, sufficient to grant the motion to dismiss. [ 3 ] Nevertheless, even if permission was requested, there is no reason to grant it. Exclusively on the face of the notice of appeal and representations of the appellant, it is clear that he wishes to debate the constitutionality of the law. [ 4 ] However, the appeal cannot be about the constitutionality of the law because in the first instance, the procedure did not correctly raise that question.

The appeal is about errors in the judgment based on the law that is presumed constitutional until decided otherwise. The appellant does not demonstrate such an error. [ 5 ] Thus, since the proposed appeal is bound to fail, it is not in the interests of justice to allow it. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 6 ] GRANTS the motion to dismiss the appeal; [ 7 ] DISMISSES the appeal; [ 8 ] THE WHOLE with judicial costs. MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.A.

STÉPHANE SANSFAÇON, J.A. JUDITH HARVIE, J.A.