2019 QCCA 1521, 2019 QCCA 1521

Lapointe c. Chen 2019 QCCA 1521 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-026993-170 ( 500-17-091163-157 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: September 13, 2019 THE HONOURABLE MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. APPELLANT- Incidental Respondent COUNSEL Steven Lapointe Mtre Jacques Prévost ( Pouliot, Caron, Prévost, Bélisle, Garneau ) RESPONDENT - Incidental Appellant COUNSEL John changchiang chen Mtre Michel Jolin m tre cHARLES LAPOINTE ( Langlois avocats, s.e.n.c.r.l. ) DESCRIPTION: Application entitled « Demande de la

partie intimée - appelante incidente pour suspendre l'exécution du jugement de la Cour d'appel (Art. 390 al. 2 C.p.c. et 65.1

(1) Loi sur la Cour suprême ) » Clerk at the hearing : Elisabeth Lepage Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING

10:38 Commencement of the hearing. Discussion between the judge and Mtre Lapointe. 10:40 Submissions by Mtre Prévost. 10:43 Discussion between the judge and Mtre Prévost. 10:55 Reply by Mtre Lapointe. 10:56 Recess of the hearing. 11:28 Resumption of the hearing. BY THE JUDGE: Judgment – see page 3 11:30 Conclusion of the hearing.

Elisabeth Lepage, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Appellant seeks the suspension of the effects of the judgment of the Court of August 22, 2019 overturning the Superior Court and dismissing the Appellant’s recourse in judicial review against a decision of the Tribunal des professions and originating with the disciplinary committee of the Quebec College of Physicians. [ 2 ] In effect, Appellant seeks the suspension of the imposition of a three-month suspension as well as the $10,000 fine. [ 3 ] I am satisfied that the three-fold test for suspension under Article 390 (2) C.C.P. and

section 65.1 of the Supreme Court Act [1] is satisfied. The issue raised and to be submitted to the Supreme Court appears serious and since the suspension once served cannot be altered, the prejudice is irreparable. The prejudice for the Appellant is also serious as are the repercussions for his patients as set forth in the motion materials before me. The Respondent College of Physicians might consider the fate of patients whose surgeries will be cancelled. The balance of convenience favours the issuance of a stay as there is virtually no prejudice for the Respondent that will result from a stay.

I underline that the disciplinary offence charged does not in any way question the professional ability of the Appellant so that the health and safety of his patients are not in issue. FOR ALL THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED:

[ 4 ] GRANTS the application for suspension (demande pour suspendre l’exécution du jugement de la Cour d’appel); [ 5 ] SUSPENDS the execution of the judgment rendered by this Court on August 22, 2019 until the expiry of the delay to seek leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada or as the case may be, the adjudication of such leave application or final judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada. [ 6 ] THE WHOLE without legal costs. MARK SCHRAGER, J.A.