2016 QCCA 821, 2016 QCCA 821

Rossdeutscher c. Montréal (Ville de) 2016 QCCA 821 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-025948-167 (500-17-081396-148) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: May 9, 2016 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE jacques dufresne , J.A. marie st-pierre , J.A. mark schrager , J.A. APPELLANTS COUNSEL RAPHAEL ROSSDEUTSCHER GARY BERTRAND 9309-1965 QUÉBEC INC. 9309-2005 QUÉBEC INC. Mtre LIONEL ROSSDEUTSCHER (Lionel Rossdeutscher & Associates) RESPONDENT COUNSEL VILLE DE MONTRÉAL Mtre ÉRIC COUTURE (Dagenais Gagnier Biron) m tre AGNèS PIgnOLY

On appeal from a judgment rendered on February 10, 2016 by the Honourable Justice Michel Yergeau of the Superior Court, District of Montreal DESCRIPTION : Amended application for permission to present indispensable new evidence and to extend the amount of pages and time limit for filing briefs (Articles 9, 18(3), 25, 373(3) and 380 C.C.P .) Clerk: Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 14:29 Commencement of the hearing.

Identification of counsel. 14:29 Submissions by Mtre Rossdeutscher. 14:53 Submissions by Mtre Couture. 15:04 Reply by Mtre Rossdeutscher. 15:07 Recess. 15:19 Resumption of the hearing. 15:19 By the Court: judgment – see page 3. 15:22 Conclusion of the hearing.

Robert Osadchuck Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The applicants seek leave to file indispensable new evidence. [ 2 ] The facts, which applicants seek to prove, occurred subsequent to the facts giving rise to the judgment of the Superior Court of February 10, 2016 under appeal, which dismissed appellants’ action and granted respondent’s cross-demand for a permanent injunction. [ 3 ] The judgment analyzes the rights of entry of building inspectors in the employ of the City of Montreal. [ 4 ] Permission to adduce facts which have occurred after the judgment of first instance is highly exceptional. [1] No such exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated.

In principle, the Court of Appeal reviews the judgment of first instance on the basis of the evidence adduced in first instance.

[ 5 ] Considering the other requests contained in applicants’ motion, we see no reason to extend the length of appellants’ factum as requested. The issues can be dealt with in 30 pages. [ 6 ] Given that respondent does not contest the extension of the delay to file appellants’ factum, this part of the motion will be granted. FOR ALL THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE COURT: [ 7 ] GRANTS the amended motion of appellants, in part only, for the sole purpose of extending the delay to file appellants’ factum to July 8, 2016; [ 8 ] Legal costs to follow suit. JACQUES DUFRESNE, J.A. MARIE ST-PIERRE, J.A. MARK SCHRAGER, J.A.