2023 QCCA 917, 2023 QCCA 917

Droit de la famille — 231171 2023 QCCA 917 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-030538-235 ( 500-12-344849-199 ) MINUTES OF HEARING WARNING : Disclosure and circulation prohibited: The Code of Civil Procedure (“ C.C.P .”) provides that, except as authorized by the court, no person shall disclose or circulate any information that would allow a party or a child whose interests are at stake in a proceeding in a family matter to be identified (art. 16 C.C.P .). DATE: July 7, 2023 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE STÉPHANE SANSFAÇON, J.A. FRÉDÉRIC BACHAND, J.A. LORI RENÉE WEITZMAN, J.A.

APPELLANT A. E. PRESENT AND Unrepresented By videoconference RESPONDENT COUNSEL S. G. Mtre Josée Dionne ( Dunton, Rainville ) By videoconference On appeal from a judgment rendered on April 3, 2023 , by the Honourable Paul Mayer of the Superior Court , District of Montreal . DESCRIPTION: Application to dismiss an appeal (Article 365 C.C.P .). Application to extend the expiration of the time fixed for instituting an appeal ( Article 21(4) of the Divorce Act .). Clerk at the hearing : René Gutknecht Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING

9:37 Commencement of the hearing. Continuation of the hearing held on July 5, 2023. The parties were excused from appearing in Court. BY THE COURT : Judgement – see page 4. 9:38 Conclusion of the hearing. René Gutknecht, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT WARNING : Disclosure and circulation prohibited: The Code of Civil Procedure (“ C.C.P .”) provides that, except as authorized by the court, no person shall disclose or circulate any information that would allow a party or a child whose interests are at stake in a proceeding in a family matter to be identified (art. 16 C.C.P .). [ 1 ] On May 26, 2023, the respondent filed an application seeking the

summary dismissal of the appeal on the ground that it was improperly initiated and that it had no reasonable chance of success. [ 2 ] We agree with the respondent that the appeal was not filed within the applicable time limit. As this is an appeal from a divorce judgment, [1] the 30-day time limit began to run on the day on which it was rendered — irrespective of whether it was rendered at the hearing or after the matter was taken under advisement. [2] Because the impugned judgment was rendered on April 3, 2023, the appellant had until May 3, 2023, to file his appeal.

He only did so on May 8, 2023. [ 3 ] Shortly before the hearing of the respondent’s application, the appellant filed an application seeking an extension of the time limit for appealing.

We see no basis to grant his application, because we agree with the respondent that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success. [ 4 ] The Superior Court judge, who provided a thorough and detailed analysis of the issues in dispute, found that the appellant — who is a member of the Quebec Bar — conducted the litigation outrageously, acted in a disloyal and disproportionate manner, was disingenuous with respect to his financial situation and submitted the respondent to verbal, emotional, psychological, legal and financial abuse.

Those findings were central to the judge’s decision to order the appellant to pay the sum of $150,000 as a provision for costs in addition to sums totalling $46,500 that had been previously awarded to the respondent as provisions for costs as well as compensation for abuse of procedure. [ 5 ] The numerous errors alleged in the notice of appeal, which takes issue with all aspects of the impugned judgment, disregard the extensive deference due by appellate courts to factual findings made at first instance as well as trial judges’ determinations regarding the best interest of children.

As the Court has emphasized on numerous occasions, an appeal is not an opportunity to redo the trial. We hasten to add that the judge’s conclusion that shared parenting time would be inappropriate seems hardly unreasonable given his findings regarding the parties’ highly acrimonious relationship. [ 6 ] Moreover, in light of the trial judge’s particularly strong criticism of the appellant’s behaviour, we must be mindful of the risks that the appeal will perpetuate the abuse of procedure that occurred at first instance.

After having reviewed the file and considered the appellant’s oral submissions, we are of the view that those risks are very real. [ 7 ] Lastly, we will not grant the respondent’s request to declare that the appeal constitutes an abuse of procedure and to send the case back to the Superior Court for a decision on an appropriate remedy. The interests of justice will be better served by bringing this matter to a definite conclusion immediately.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 8 ] DISMISSES the appellant’s application seeking an extension of the time limit for appealing; [ 9 ] DISMISSES , as unnecessary in the circumstances, the respondent’s application to dismiss the appeal; [ 10 ] DISMISSES the respondent’s request seeking a declaration that the appeal constitutes an abuse of procedure;

[ 11 ] THE WHOLE without costs, given the nature of the matter. STÉPHANE SANSFAÇON, J.A. FRÉDÉRIC BACHAND, J.A. LORI RENÉE WEITZMAN, J.A.