Mansour c. Mousli 2011 QCCA 191 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-021264-106 ( 500-17-057104-104 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: February 2, 2011 THE HONOURABLE JACQUES CHAMBERLAND, J.A. PETITIONER ATTORNEY MAMDOUH MANSOUR Personally RESPONDENT ATTORNEY NISAR MOUSLI Mtre Guy Nephtali

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT RENDERED ON NOVEMBER 18, 2010 BY THE HON. MICHELINE PERREAULT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Clerk: Annick Nguyen Court Room: RC.18 HEARING 10:01 Commencement of the hearing. 10:02 Submission by Mr. Mansour. 10:22 Submission by Mtre Nephtali. 10:27 Reply by Mr. Mansour. 10:28 Suspension. 10:35 Resumption of the hearing. BY THE JUDGE. Judgment – See page 3.

Annick Nguyen Clerk JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Petitioner Mamdouh Mansour is seeking leave to appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court rendered of November 18, 2010 (Perreault J.) dismissing his Motion for revocation of a safeguard order rendered by Trudel J. on April 20, 2010. [ 2 ] The safeguard order being by its very nature an interlocutory judgment, the decision that Petitioner seeks leave to appeal from must also be treated as an interlocutory judgment, under art. 29 and 511 C.C.P. [ 3 ] I am of the view that the pursuit of justice ( les fins de la justice ) does not require that leave be granted. [ 4 ] Given the interlocutory nature of a safeguard order, this Court will very rarely grant leave to appeal from such an order; the same reasoning goes for the judgment dismissing a Motion for revocation of a safeguard order.

This Court has always been of the view that, save exceptional circumstances, the resources of the parties will be better used by bringing the original proceedings to an end, be it judiciary or amicable, rather than by arguing over a safeguard order which by nature is interlocutory and which by definition can be

varied, adjusted or modified according to the circumstances. [ 5 ] In any event, it would appear that Petitioner's concern about the safeguard order has more to do about the way the order was recorded in the Index des immeubles (under #17 155 675) than about the content of the order itself. [ 6 ] FOR THESE REASONS , the Motion is dismissed, with costs. JACQUES CHAMBERLAND, J.A.