2023 QCCA 617, 2023 QCCA 617

Droit de la famille — 23640 2023 QCCA 617 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-030507-230 ( 540-12-022380-182 ) 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: May 5, 2023 THE HONOURABLE PATRICK HEALY, J.A. APPLICANT COUNSEL B. C.

Mtre Eloïse Pion ( Prévost Fortin D'Aoust ) Absent RESPONDENT COUNSEL K. Cl. Mtre Michel Roland Gauthier ( Sylvestre Avocats ) Absent DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment rendered in the course of the proceeding on April 4 th 2023 by the Honourable Serge Gaudet of the Superior Court , District of Laval . (Articles 31 et 357 C.C.P .) Clerk at the hearing : Ariane Simard-Trudel Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING

Continuation of the hearing held on May 3, 2023. The parties were excused from appearing in Court. BY THE JUDGE : Judgement – see page 3. Conclusion of the hearing. Ariane Simard-Trudel, 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 ] Pursuant to

article 31 C.C.P., the Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of the Superior Court that ordered the child of the parties to continue his schooling at l’école A de Ville A, as sought by the Respondent, and dismissed the application of the Petitioner that the child be schooled at [School B] in [Borough A] or l’école C in Ville A, both of which are private and bilingual schools. [1] The central question is which of the options favoured by the parties is in the best interests of the child. That is the only question.

The Respondent considers that the child should continue where he is now, which is a bilingual public school that is predominantly francophone. The Petitioner considers that it would be in the child’s best interests to attend a school that offers a more bilingual curriculum and setting. [ 2 ] It is useful first to consider the judge’s

summary of his conclusions and thereafter note some of the salient considerations behind them: [54] [L'École A], une excellente école publique francophone, a été choisie par les parties après de difficiles négociations, et Monsieur a finalement accepté que X y soit inscrit pour sa maternelle et pour l’ensemble de son primaire, précisément parce que le déménagement de Madame dans le quartier qu’elle dessert éliminait l’incertitude quant à la disponibilité d’une place d’une années à l’autre.

X s’est bien adapté à cette école, laquelle est située dans le quartier ou réside sa mère, et dans la ville ou habite aussi son père, et il y retrouve avec plaisir ses deux grands amis qui la fréquentent aussi. Madame est impliquée dans certaines activités et certains comités de cette école Par ailleurs, X baigne dans un environnement familial et social ou l’anglais a une place importante, sinon prépondérante, et il est porté a utiliser l’anglais plutôt que le français avec ses amis. La langue française est difficile a manier, notamment a l’écrit, mais sa maitrise est essentielle au Québec.

De son côté, l’anglais (contrairement au français) exerce une force d’attraction considérable, comme tous le savent en ce pays, et il n’y a pratiquement aucun risque que le choix d’une école francophone ait pour effet de faire perdre à l’enfant ses compétences en anglais ou sa culture anglophone. [55].Dans ces circonstances, et à la lumière des critères normalement retenus par les tribunaux pour le choix d’une école, je ne vois pas en quoi l’intérêt de X exigerait de mettre de coté le choix de l’école A qui a été fait par les parties au printemps 2021.

Au contraire, j’estime que ce chois était et reste dans son meilleur intérêt et qu’il n’y a pas de raison justifiant de le changer de milieu scolaire, avec l’adaptation et les bouleversements que cela supposerait et, en prime, une augmentation du temps de déplacement requis our se rendre à l’école et en revenir. [ 3 ] The child was born in 2017. On the separation of the parties they agreed to shared custody.

With the Respondent the child speaks French; with the Petitioner and his family he speaks English and Greek. [ 4 ] In the divorce proceedings in November 2018 the parties agreed that the Petitioner would pay all costs for the child to attend a private school that they would choose together. Discussions ensued but there was no immediate agreement. The Respondent decided to move in July 2021 from Town B to Ville A, where the Petitioner also lived, and the Petitioner agreed in April 2021 with her suggestion that the child attend the école A from the end of August 2022.

This agreement was not homologated and the Petitioner subsequently sought to repudiate it. [ 5 ] From the beginning of discussions the Petitioner expressed his wish that the child should attend a school where he would develop his abilities in French, English and Greek. When the child began at [School A] he adapted well, enjoyed school, liked his teacher and got along well with his friends. At an early date, however, the Petitioner became concerned that [School A] was insufficiently bilingual.

He informed the Respondent that he wished to change the child’s school and eventually modified his legal proceedings to seek a court order for the enrollment of the child at [School B] or the école C. He undertook to assume all costs for the child to attend one of these schools for his primary education. The Petitioner now seeks leave to appeal for the same conclusions from a panel of the Court. [ 6 ] Although the agreement of April 2021 that the child would attend [School A] was not homologated, it remains in place and its terms are still observed by the parties.

Further, the Superior Court concluded that the circumstances of the parties and the child have not

changed in any significant way. The question brought before the Superior Court and now before this Court is whether the best interests of the child merit a change of the child’s school as sought by the Petitioner. [ 7 ] The Superior Court notes that [School A] and the other schools are all excellent but it also notes the importance of stability and continuity in the child’s life. This is not a subject of dispute between the parties and even the Petitioner acknowledged before the Superior Court that [School A] is an excellent school.

The central question appears to be whether the Petitioner’s wish that the child have a more bilingual environment is a sufficient reason to say that his best interests merit the change of school sought by the Petitioner. [ 8 ] Even if the decision of the Superior Court determines the question it had to address, there is nothing in the present application to suggest that the Petitioner has been or might be caused irreparable injury. There is nothing to suggest that if the child is not enrolled in a more bilingual school his linguistic and cultural aptitudes and skills will be impaired.

If the child remains enrolled at [School A] the stability of his educational, social and cultural life will be maintained. [ 9 ] The placement of the child in a school is a matter of great importance for the parties but the present application for leave discloses no plausible error by the Superior Court in the application of relevant concerns relating to the child’s best interests. There is also nothing more to suggest that it would be in the interests of justice to allow an appeal to proceed. FOR THESE REASONS THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 10 ] DISMISSES the application for leave without legal costs. PATRICK HEALY, J.A.