2022 QCCA 1062, 2022 QCCA 1062

Zhang c. Jian 2022 QCCA 1062 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500- 09-025125-154 ( 50 5-17-002072-058) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: August 2, 2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE BENOÎT MOORE, J.A. GUY COURNOYER, J.A. CHRISTINE BAUDOUIN, J.A. APPELLANT Zhi LONG ZHANG ABSENT AND UNREPRESENTED RESPONDENT MING JIAN PRESENT AND UNREPRESENTED DESCRIPTION: Application of the respondent to set aside the judgment based on false exhibits and fraud (Articles 84 and 345 C.C.P.). Clerk at the hearing : Lesly Ramos Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 9:33 Commencement of the hearing.

Continuation of the hearing held on August 1, 2022. The parties were excused from appearing in Court. BY THE COURT : Judgment – see page 3. 9:34 Conclusion of the hearing.

Lesly Ramos, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The applicant, Ming Jian, seeks the revocation of a judgment of this Court dated October 24, 2016, [1] which reversed a judgment of the Superior Court. [ 2 ] At the hearing, Ms. Jian sought to file an amended application. As the amended application was not notified to Mr. Zhang at least five days before the hearing date (art. 377 C.C.P. ), the Court refused to consider the amended application. [ 3 ] In any event, the main procedural obstacle to Ms.

Jian’s application is the fact that, on May 7, 2018, the Court dismissed an almost identical application for the following reasons: [5] For some unexplained reason, the file in the Superior Court has not progressed and what is generally known in revocation proceedings as the rescisoire stage of the case remains pending. [6] The applicant now wishes to adduce in this court various items of evidence which, according to her, pertain to her application for revocation of judgment directed against the judgment of October 24th, 2016. [7] As it is currently formulated, this application, large parts of which are unintelligible, could in all likelihood have been struck from the roll pursuant to the second paragraph of

section 64 of the Civil Practice Regulation (Court of Appeal). [8] However, it is not inconceivable that the applicant, who makes renewed allegations of fraud against the respondent, has a case to make, based on fresh evidence supportive of her claims against the respondent. The appropriate forum to litigate such claims is the Superior Court, for the evidence which the applicant wishes to tender will in all probability attract counter evidence from the respondent, all of which will have to be ruled upon and weighed by a trial judge.

The Superior Court is better equipped for this task than is the Court of Appeal. [9] These matters should therefore be aired in the case now still pending in the Superior Court, if necessary with prior amendments to the pleadings as they now stand. [ 4 ] We agree. The Court’s reasons are self-explanatory and still applicable today. [ 5 ] Any evidence that the applicant wishes to present must be submitted to the Superior Court, which is the appropriate forum to consider the issues raised by the applicant. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 6 ] DISMISSES the application, with costs. BENOÎT MOORE, J.A.

GUY COURNOYER, J.A. CHRISTINE BAUDOUIN, J.A.