2023 QCCA 1504, 2023 QCCA 1504

Droit de la famille — 232030 2023 QCCA 1504 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-030780-233 ( 700-04-031699-207 ) 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: November 29, 2023 THE HONOURABLE PATRICK HEALY, J.A. APPLICANT COUNSEL L. B. Mtre Sophie M.

Cardinal ( Cardinal Léonard Denis, avocats ) RESPONDENT COUNSEL A. BA. Mtre Viktoriya Pugach ( Schirm & Tremblay Avocats ) By videoconference DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment rendered in the course of the proceeding on November 10, 2023 by the Honourable Jean-Yves Lalonde of the Superior Court , District of Terrebonne (Arts. 31 and 357 C.p.c. ) . Clerk at the hearing : Mélanie Camiré Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING

10:23 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. Submissions by Mtre Pugach. 10:36 Submissions by Mtre Cardinal. 10:50 BY THE JUDGE: Judgment will be rendered in the course of the day and sent to the parties. Conclusion of the hearing.

Mélanie Camiré, 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 (art. 16 C.C.P .). [ 1 ] The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against an oral judgment of the Superior Court dated 10 November 2023 [1] that dismissed her application for a provision for costs [2] in an appeal filed by the respondent against a previous judgment dated 20 March 2023 concerning the custody of children. [3] She claims that the judgment of 10 November 2023 causes her an irremediable prejudice within the meaning of the second paragraph of

Article 31 C.C.P. because she will be unable to proceed in the appeal without liquidating her limited assets. [ 2 ] The respondent claims that the judgment of 10 November 2023 terminated the proceeding and that the possibility of appeal is governed by Article 30(2)(1) because the amount in issue is less than $ 60 000. [ 3 ] The respondent’s preliminary point is without merit because the judgment of 10 November is on its face a continuation in appeal against the previous judgment of 20 March 2023. It is the same proceeding. Whether the motion for leave is presented under

Article 30 or

Article 31, a consideration of its merits leads to the same conclusion. [ 4 ] The decision to grant or refuse a provision for costs is discretionary. [4] In the proceeding leading to the judgment of 20 March 2023 a provision for costs was refused by the presiding judge on the basis that the applicant did not meet the applicable criteria. On 10 November 2023 the judgment concerning a provision for costs in appeal was given in these terms: CONSIDÉRANT que la demande de Madame est fondée sur l’article 416 C.p.c .; CONSIDÉRANT que l’article 416 C.p.c . s’applique notamment si le Tribunal constate que sans une aide financière, la

partie qui demande la provision pour frais risque de se retrouver dans une situation économique telle qu’elle ne pourrait faire valoir son point de vue valablement; CONSIDÉRANT que la jurisprudence pertinente a élaboré principalement six critères d’attribution : 1. La nécessité pour le créancier de l’attribution de la provision pour frais 2. Les besoins et les moyens de la

partie qui le requiert 3. La disparité des ressources financières des parties 4. La nature, la complexité et l’importance du litige 5. La protection des droits des enfants 6. Le comportement des parties CONSIDÉRANT que le 20 mars 2023, le juge Bienvenu a décidé que la demande de provision pour frais de Madame ne satisfait pas les critères établis pour y donner droit;

CONSIDÉRANT que la preuve disponible permet de constater que depuis le jugement de mars 2023 du juge Bienvenu, la situation de Madame ne s’est pas dégradée au point qu’elle serait actuellement en situation d’impécuniosité; CONSIDÉRANT que la preuve soumise établit qu’il existe une disparité importante entre les moyens financiers des parties, mais qu’il ne s’agit pas du seul critère applicable; CONSIDÉRANT que Madame n’a pas démontré à la satisfaction de la Cour, qu’elle se trouve dans une situation économique telle qu'elle ne pourra faire valoir son point de vue valablement; CONSIDÉRANT que la cause portée en appel s’avère une affaire peu complexe; CONSIDÉRANT qu’il est de l’intérêt des enfants que la Cour d’appel porte un nouveau regard sur la décision du juge Bienvenu et que Monsieur a des moyens sérieux à faire valoir en appel; CONSIDÉRANT que, comme l’a décidé le juge Bienvenu, l’ensemble des procédures s’avère proportionnel aux enjeux de l’affaire et que le comportement peu collaboratif du père n’a pas été établi; CONSIDÉRANT que la mère a investi dans une demande de rejet de l’appel, qui était plus que probablement voué à l’échec; CONSIDÉRANT que la demanderesse refuse la médiation ou une conférence de règlement à l’amiable tenue par un juge d’appel; CONSIDÉRANT que Madame ne sera pas privée de faire valoir ses droits sans une provision pour frais; CONSIDÉRANT que les circonstances particulières à la présente instance ne justifient pas l’octroi d’une provision pour frais. [ 5 ] It is apparent in the materials supporting the present motion that there is a sizeable difference between the financial means of the parties.

It also appears that outstanding legal bills payable to the petitioner’s counsel significantly exceed her current cash resources.

If the purpose of a provision for costs is to ensure equality of means between the parties in the presentation of their respective legal claims, the decision whether to grant a provision must take into consideration not only the necessity for assistance but the disproportionality of resources available to the parties. [5] In the present matter, however, there is no basis on which to say that the judge made a palpable and overriding error in exercising his discretionary evaluation of the respective means of the parties.

The judge concluded that despite the disparity of means between the parties the petitioner’s financial situation presented no impediment to proceeding on the appeal.

Article 416 C.C.P. is not limited strictly to an assessment of the financial situation of a party who seeks a provision for costs, although the

article makes specific mention of this factor. In this case the judge took a variety of factors into account and his consideration of them discloses no palpable and overriding error that could justify the intervention of this Court, even if a panel of its members might be inclined to view all of the relevant factors differently. In the absence of an error that is conspicuous and decisive [6] the discretion of the judge is entitled to deference. FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 6 ] DISMISSES the motion for leave to appeal without costs. PATRICK HEALY, J.A.