2011 QCCA 1751, 2011 QCCA 1751
Opinion
Azar c. Concordia University 2011 QCCA 1751 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-022009-112 ( 500-17-062502-102 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: September 27, 2011 THE HONOURABLE NICHOLAS KASIRER, J.A. PETITIONER ATTORNEY ASHRAF AZAR ABSENT RESPONDENT ATTORNEY CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY Mtre Rebecca St-Pierre (ABSENT) LANGLOIS KRONSTRÖM DESJARDINS
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THE HONOURABLE GENEVIEVE MARCOTTE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT ON AUGUST 17, 2011, DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Clerk: Annick Nguyen Court Room: ——— HEARING Continuation of September 26, 2011, hearing. Judgment – See page 3. Annick Nguyen Clerk JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Ashraf Azar asks for leave to appeal from a final judgment of the Superior Court, District of Montreal (the Honourable Geneviève Marcotte), rendered on August 17, 2011, which dismissed his petition for a permanent injunction.
He sought to oblige Concordia University to hold a new hearing on a disciplinary matter relating to his time there as a student and issue a revised transcript of studies he had undertaken at the University. The motion for leave rests on
article 26 C.C.P. [ 2 ] The motions judge dismissed the petition for injunctive relief following a motion to dismiss filed by respondent Concordia University. The motion to dismiss cited separate grounds under articles 165(1) and (4) and 54.1 C.C.P. at its paragraph 46. In addition to dismissing the action, the judge also formally declared the proceedings of Mr. Azar to be improper. [ 3 ] Assuming, without deciding, that I have jurisdiction to hear this motion for leave pursuant to
article 26, paragraph 2 (4.1) C.C.P., [1] the timeliness of Mr. Azar's petition for leave is in dispute. [ 4 ] Mr. Azar acknowledged that he received notification of the judgment of the Superior Court on August 17, 2011 by electronic mail. He filed and served the motion on September 19, 2011, outside the delay provided for in
article 494 C.C.P. The respondent observes that this time limit is peremptory. [ 5 ] A judge sitting alone does not have jurisdiction to provide special leave to appeal outside the prescribed time limit. [2] [ 6 ] FOR THESE REASONS , the undersigned: [ 7 ] DISMISSES the motion for leave to appeal,
[ 8 ] THE WHOLE, with costs. NICHOLAS KASIRER, J.A.
Loading document…