2022 QCCA 1630, 2022 QCCA 1630

S.G. c. CIUSSS de l'Ouest-de-l'Île-de-Montréal 2022 QCCA 1630 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-700098-221 ( 500-17-119526-211 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: November 25, 2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE JACQUES J. LEVESQUE, J.A. STEPHEN W. HAMILTON, J.A. MICHEL BEAUPRÉ, J.A. APPELLANT S. G. ABSENT AND Unrepresented RESPONDENT COUNSEL THE CIUSS DE L'OUEST DE L'ÎLE DE MONTRÉAL Mtre MAUDE LAFORTUNE-BÉLAIR ( Lavery, De Billy ) Absent DESCRIPTION: Application to reinstitute the case file and to allow to file briefs (Article 377 C.C.P .).

Clerk at the hearing : René Gutknecht Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING Continuation of the hearing held on November 21, 2022. The parties were excused from appearing in Court. BY THE COURT: Judgment – see page 3. René Gutknecht, Clerk at the hearing

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The applicant seeks “to reinstitute this case file and to allow to file Briefs”. [ 2 ] He filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court (Hon. Mark Phillips) rendered May 13, 2022 [1] , who concluded that his different requests for documents for the purposes of the divorce proceedings should be dealt with in the divorce file and that the requests made in this civil file were “inappropriate” in the circumstances.

He therefore: [31] DECLARES plaintiff’s proceedings in file 500-17-119526-211 to be abusive; [32] DISMISSES those proceedings; [ 3 ] The judge wrote in his reasons: [24] As for the claim for punitive damages, it is, by Mr. S. G.’s own admission, based entirely on vague speculation. The Court therefore finds it to be clearly unfounded, quarrelsome and vexatious within the meaning of

article 51 C.C.P. […] [29] The Court notes that in that file, Mr. S. G. has shown himself to be capable of issuing a subpoena. He should therefore obviously subpoena all relevant witnesses and documents to his upcoming divorce trial, where the judge seized of the merits will be able to rule on any and all objections thereto. [ 4 ] The appellant filed his notice of appeal on June 3, 2022. [ 5 ] Pursuant to

Article 373, al. 1 C.C.P. , the brief had to be filed and notified within three months of the date of the notice of appeal. [ 6 ] The appellant attempted to file a brief on September 6, but it did not comply with the requirements of the Court. The clerk advised the appellant accordingly and allowed him a delay to satisfy all requirements under

Section 51 of the Court’s Civil Practice Regulation. This delay expired on September 21, 2022. [ 7 ] The appellant failed to meet that delay and his appeal was thus declared lapsed. [ 8 ] According to

Section 34 of the Civil Practice Regulation as it was at that time, “the Court may relieve a party from its default resulting in the lapse of an appeal or its foreclosure for pleading”. [ 9 ] But to relieve a party from its default to file its brief in due time, the appeal itself, as contemplated by the requesting party, must be regularly formed. This is not the case here. [ 10 ]

Article 30, paragr. 2(3) C.C.P. clearly provides that “judgments dismissing a judicial application because of its abuse nature” may only be appealed with leave. There is no such application for leave in the present case. Moreover, the appellant does not meet the conditions in

Article 30, paragr. 3 C.C.P. [ 11 ] The Court explained in Droit de la famille – 191963 [2] : [4] La

partie qui demande à être relevée d’un constat de caducité ou de forclusion n’a pas à établir que son défaut résulte d’une impossibilité d’agir en temps utile, mais elle doit plutôt démontrer le sérieux des moyens qu’elle entend faire valoir et établir que son retard n’est pas le fruit d’un manque de diligence (particulièrement lorsque le fait de corriger le défaut aura pour conséquence de déplacer une audience dont la date est déjà fixée), encore que l’erreur puisse parfois être excusée (notamment lorsque le défaut tient à un bref retard). L’on doit tenir compte également du préjudice, s’il en est, qui pourrait être causé à la

partie adverse. [Emphasis added] [ 12 ] The Court also wrote in Amzallag c. Ville de Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts [3] that “the appeal has to be of a serious nature” [4] . [ 13 ] Unfortunately, we cannot see such a serious nature in the appellant’s notice of appeal . As indicated by the judge, the appellant can proceed by other means to obtain the relevant documents. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 14 ] DISMISSES the application, without costs. JACQUES J. LEVESQUE, J.A.

STEPHEN W. HAMILTON, J.A. MICHEL BEAUPRÉ, J.A.