2020 QCCA 884, 2020 QCCA 884

Brief c. Narang 2020 QCCA 884 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-028727-196 ( 500-22-251369-180 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: July 7, 2020 THE HONOURABLE MARK SCHRAGER, J.A.

APPLICANT Dominique Brief Unrepresented By videoconference RESPONDENTS COUNSEL Geeta Narang Mtre LÉA CHARBONNEAU ( IMK ) By videoconference CONSTANTIN KYRITIS MICHAEL COHEN Mtre PATRICIA TIMMONS ( Belainsky & avocats ) By videoconference DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment terminating the proceedings rendered on October 31, 2019 by the Honourable Sylvie Lachapelle of the Court of Québec , District of Montreal (Art. 30 par. 2 and 357 C.C.P. ). Clerk at the hearing : Mélanie Camiré Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING

11:57 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. Preliminary remarks. 11:59 Submissions by Mrs. Brief. 12:23 BY THE JUDGE: Judgment - see page 3. Conclusion of the hearing.

Mélanie Camiré, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Applicant seeks leave to appeal two judgments rendered on October 31, 2019 by the Court of Québec, District of Montreal (the Honourable Sylvie Lachapelle), dismissing her action against the three Defendants, the Respondents herein. [ 2 ] The case arises in the context of a dispute between the Applicant and her sister in the curatorship and then the estate of their now deceased father. The sister sought and obtained the removal of the Applicant as estate liquidator.

The Applicant was declared a quarrelsome litigant in first instance and her contestation of the action for her removal was dismissed as abusive. Leave to appeal was denied. Given the acrimony between the sisters, the Superior Court named a third party as liquidator of the estate. [ 3 ] In the court below, the Applicant sued her former attorneys (Mtres Cohen and Kyritsis) as well as her sister’s attorney (Mtre Narang) for 10,000$ of moral and punitive damages allegedly incurred as a result of her removal and replacement as estate liquidator.

She also sought an order against her former attorneys to reimburse half the cost to be incurred by the Applicant for any fees payable to the replacement liquidator. [ 4 ] In the two judgments, in respect of which leave to appeal is sought, the action was dismissed, the judge deciding that even if the attorneys had committed a fault, the Applicant had not suffered any damage as alleged by the appointment of a third party liquidator.

As such, the Applicant’s action was dismissed as abusive, having no reasonable chance of success. [ 5 ] Because of the amount in issue and the declaration of abuse, leave to appeal is required pursuant to

Article 30 C.C.P. Such leave is only granted where the matter is one that should be resolved by the Court of appeal because, for example, the case involves a question of principle or a new issue of law. The burden of persuasion rests on the Applicant. [ 6 ] Here, the judge reviewed the factual circumstances and concluded that the action was doomed to fail. The Applicant’s presentation before the undersigned confirms that the matter turns on its own particular facts such that there is no issue raised which would qualify the case for leave under

Article 30 C.C.P. FOR ALL THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 7 ] DISMISSES the application for leave to appeal with legal costs. MARK SCHRAGER, J.A.