2020 QCCA 1571, 2020 QCCA 1571

Hrabovskyy c. Université de Montréal 2020 QCCA 1571 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-029025-202 ( 500-17-106731-196 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: November 16, 2020 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS PELLETIER, J.A. MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. MARIE-JOSÉE HOGUE, J.A. APPELLANT COUNSEL VOLODYMYR HRABOVsKYY Unrepresented (by videoconference) RESPONDENT COUNSEL UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL Mtre MARTIN CÔTÉ Mtre XAVIER MORAND-BOCK ( Robinson Sheppard Shapiro ) (by videoconference) DESCRIPTION: “Motion ” Clerk at the hearing : Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 10:33 a.m.

Commencement of the hearing. 10:34 a.m. Submissions by Mr. Hrabovskyy. 11:01 a.m. Recess. 11:15 a.m. Resumption of the hearing. 11:15 a.m. By the Court: judgment – see page 3. Robert Osadchuck, Clerk at the hearing

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Appellant seeks leave to appeal the judgment rendered orally on July 14, 2020 and transcribed on July 21, 2020 by the Superior Court, District of Montreal (the Honourable Marc St-Pierre), which dismissed the Appellant’s motion for judicial review of decisions of the disciplinary committee of the Université de Montréal. In virtue of the decisions, the Appellant was found guilty of various disciplinary offences and was expelled from the University. [ 2 ] In our view, given the suspension of delays in civil matters until September 1, 2020, the motion is not made beyond the delays.

However, leave is required pursuant to article 30(5) C.C.P. Such leave is granted where “the matter at issue is one that should be submitted to that Court, for example because it involves a question of principle, a new issue or an issue of law that has given rise to conflicting judicial decisions”. [ 3 ] In a short judgment, the Superior Court concluded that the decisions of the disciplinary committee were well motivated and applied the relevant disciplinary by-law of the University to the facts.

As such, the judge concluded that the decisions were reasonable. [ 4 ] The Appellant does not raise any issues which would justify the granting of leave. The motion is but a rambling enunciation of accepted legal principles unconnected in any coherent fashion to the complaints lodged against the Appellant, their treatment by the disciplinary committee or the finding of the Superior Court that the decisions were reasonable. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE COURT: [ 5 ] DISMISSES the motion for leave to appeal, without legal costs given the late filing of authorities by the Respondent. FRANÇOIS PELLETIER, J.A.

MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. MARIE-JOSÉE HOGUE, J.A.