Droit de la famille — 121390 2012 QCCA 1070 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-022023-113 ( 500-12-284817-065 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: June 8, 2012 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE PIERRE J. DALPHOND, J.A. FRANÇOIS DOYON, J.A. JACQUES A. LÉGER, J.A. APPELLANT ATTORNEY Y. Q. Absent RESPONDENT ATTORNEY X. H. Absent On appeal from a judgment rendered on August 23, 2011 by the Honourable Justice Benoit Emery of the Superior Court district of Montreal.

NATURE OF THE APPEAL : Sale -property Clerk: Marcelle Desmarais Courtroom: Antonio-Lamer HEARING Continuation of the hearing of June 7, 2012 Judgment – see page 3.

Marcelle Desmarais Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT [ 1 ] On appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, District of Montreal (Honourable Benoît Emery), rendered on August 23, 2011, which dismissed appellant's motion to compel respondent to sign all the necessary documents pertaining to the sale of an apartment in China and granted respondent's motion to strike out par. 4 of the « consent agreement » signed by the parties on June 5, 2006 and ratified in the Divorce Judgment rendered on February 6, 2007. [ 2 ] The trial judge heard evidence from both parties on their respective motions and concluded that respondent had been forced by appellant to sign the consent agreement .

His decision turned exclusively on his appreciation of credibility of the relevant witnesses, based on the testimony that he heard. In support of his sole ground of appeal raised in his exposé , appellant refers to the evidence adduced by respondent at the hearing though no transcript was provided to the Court. His arguments appear to be essentially the same as those he made in first instance. In other words, he is asking the Court to revisit the evidence and to conclude that respondent was not forced to sign in 2006 the consent agreement .

[ 3 ] It is trite law that the standard of review of findings of facts by the trial judge is high and Appellate Courts must show strong deference, unless palpable and overriding errors can be pointed to in the judgement appealed from. In this case, appellant has failed to show any such errors in the trial judge's reasons that would justify the Court's intervention. For these REASONS, THE COURT: [ 4 ] DISMISSES the appeal, without costs. PIERRE J. DALPHOND, J.A. FRANÇOIS DOYON, J.A. JACQUES A. LÉGER, J.A.