2015 QCCA 1649, 2015 QCCA 1649

Michalakopoulos c. Barreau du Québec 2015 QCCA 1649 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-025536-152 (500-80-026539-131) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: October 8, 2015 THE HONOURABLE MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. PETITIONER ATTORNEY PETER MICHALAKOPOULOS NOT REPRESENTED RESPONDENT ATTORNEY BARREAU DU QUÉBEC Mtre MARC BISHAI (Barreau du Québec) DESCRIPTION: Motion to Appeal the Judgements Rendered by the Honourable Judge, Jean-F. Keable, J.C.Q, on 20 April 2015, and by the Honourable Judge, Jeffrey Edwards, JCQ, on 9 July 2015 Clerk: Mihary Andrianaivo Courtroom: RC-18

HEARING 10: 25 Commencement of the hearing. Mr. Michalakopoulos asks for an adjournement. 10: 26 By the Judge: The request is denied. 10: 27 Suspension of the hearing. 11: 22 Resumption of the hearing. 11: 23 Suspension of the hearing. 11: 43 Resumption of the hearing. Submissions by Mr. Michalakopoulos. 12: 03 Submissions by Mtre Bishai. 12: 09 Rebuttal by Mr. Michalakopoulos. 12:11 Suspension of the hearing. 12: 24 Resumption of the hearing. By the Judge: Judgement – See page 3. 12: 27 End of the hearing.

Mihary Andrianaivo Clerk BY THE JUDGE JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Petitioner seeks leave to appeal two judgments of the Court of Quebec, District of Montreal, rendered on July 9, 2015 by the Honourable Jeffrey Edwards and on April 20, 2015 by the Honourable Jean F. Keable. [ 2 ] The judgment of Edwards’, J.C.Q., dismisses Petitioner’s motion to revoke the judgment of Keable, J.C.Q.

The latter judgment dismissed Petitioner’s motion to revoke a judgment of the Court of Quebec of October 1, 2014 (the Honourable Marie Michelle Lavigne) homologating a decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the Quebec Bar and condemning Petitioner to pay $4,352.74 plus interest, additional indemnity and costs. [ 3 ] Petitioner alleges that he only received the Edwards’ J.C.Q. judgment on July 16, 2015 so that his motion served on August 14, 2015 is within the legal delays.

The Keable, J.C.Q., judgment, in Petitioner’s possession, certainly since the hearing before Judge Edwards on July 3, 2015 is beyond the delays so that leave from the Court and not a judge is required under

article 523 C.C.P. to appeal from the Keable, J.C.Q. judgment. Petitioner pleads that his motion in revocation suspended the delay to appeal the Keable, J.C.Q., judgment. For the reasons, which follow, even if the request to appeal the Keable, J.C.Q., judgment was not late, permission should not be granted. [ 4 ] The value of the object in appeal (i.e. the condemnation) is less than $50,000. Accordingly, leave to appeal the judgment of Edwards’, J.C.Q., is governed by

article 26, 2 nd paragraph C.C.P ., which provides that leave may be granted “…when the matter at issue is one which ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal, particularly where, in the opinion of the judge, the matter at issue is a question of principle, a new issue or a question of law that has given rise to conflicting judicial precedents, …”. [ 5 ] Petitioner submits that the issue here is his right to be heard or at least be assisted by the judge. However, he was heard by both judges Keable and Edwards and is not satisfied with the outcome. [ 6 ] There is no allegation in the motion that could satisfy

article 26 C.C.P. The Petitioner alleges errors of fact and errors of law in the

interpretation of articles 482 and 483 C.C.P. without specifying what these errors of law might be. [ 7 ] Accordingly, there is no grounds upon which leave might be granted. THEREFORE, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 8 ] DISMISSES the Motion for leave to appeal from a final judgment with costs.

MARK SCHRAGER, J.A.