2014 QCCA 488, 2014 QCCA 488

Lapin c. Lapin 2014 QCCA 488 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL N o : 500-09-024280-141 (500-17-077862-137) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: March 13, 2014 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NICHOLAS KASIRER, J.A. PETITIONER COUNCEL JANICE LAPIN Mtre Alain Mongeau ALAIN MONGEAU, AVOCATS RESPONDENT COUNCEL ISIDORE LAPIN Mtre Howard M. Greenfield GREENFIELD ET ASSOCIÉS REQUÊTE DE LA DÉFENDERESSE/ DEMANDERESSE RECONVENTIONNELLE POUR PERMISSION D'APPELER D'UN JUGEMENT INTERLOCUTOIRE RENDU LE 10 FÉVRIER 2014 PAR L'HONORABLE CHANTAL MASSE DE LA COUR SUPÉRIEURE DANS LE DISTRICT DE MONTRÉAL (Art. 29, 494 et 511 Code de procédure civile ) Clerk: Asma Berrak Court Room: RC.18

HEARING 11:35: Beginning of hearing. 11:35: Submission by Mtre Mongeau. 12:07: Submission by Mtre Greenfield. 12:24: Reply by Mtre Mongeau. 12:28: Suspension of hearing. Judgment will be rendered at 4 p.m. The judge dispenses the parties from attendance. 16:03: Resumption of hearing. 16:03: Judgment-see page 3. 16:04: Conclusion of hearing.

Asma Berrak Clerk JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Janice Lapin seeks leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment of the Superior Court, District of Montreal (the Honourable Chantal Masse presiding), rendered on February 10, 2014, which dismissed her “motion to cancel a notice of advance registration” [1] of a judicial demand published against an immovable she owns. [ 2 ] The notice of advance registration was published in the land register by respondent Isidore Lapin, pursuant to

article 2966 C.C.Q ., in connection with the principal action brought by him against his niece Janice Lapin. Isidore Lapin seeks to revoke a gift of the immovable made to her, as donee, by him and his late brother, as donors and undivided co-owners, by notarial deed on October 27, 2006. *** [ 3 ] In the principal action, Isidore Lapin alleges that the gift should be revoked on account of Janice Lapin’s ingratitude. Mr. Lapin claims that, notwithstanding the gift inter vivos , it was understood that he would have a right to live in the immovable during his lifetime. He alleges that Ms. Lapin evicted him from the home in a manner that displays ingratitude, within the meaning of that term in

article 1836 C.C.Q ., such that the gift should be revoked. [ 4 ] The conclusions to Mr. Lapin’s motion to institute proceedings ask explicitly that the act of gift made to Janice Lapin be annulled. [ 5 ] The notice of advance registration published by Mr. Lapin records, inter alia , the nature of the judicial demand as a motion to institute proceedings to annul a gift (“ requête introductive d’instance en annulation d’une donation ”).

It also records the nature of the right in respect of which the action was brought as a real right of ownership (“ droit de propriété ”). [ 6 ] Janice Lapin’s motion to cancel the notice of advance registration filed in Superior Court alleged that the notice was an absolute nullity because it refers to an action to revoke a gift which, according to the position she took before the motions judge, is the source of a personal right and not a real right as required by

article 2966 C.C.Q . [ 7 ] In an oral judgment rendered at the hearing, the motions judge dismissed Ms. Lapin’s motion.

After noting that the notice of advance registration concerns a motion to institute proceedings to annul a gift of ownership in an immovable, the judge wrote: Vu qu’il s’agit en conséquence d’une demande en justice qui concerne un droit réel soumis à l’inscription sur le registre foncier au sens des articles 2966 et 2938 du Code civil du Québec ; Vu que le seul moyen soulevé au soutien de la requête pour radiation de l’avis de préinscription était que la requête introductive d’instance concernait un droit personnel et qu’il est sans fondement; Le Tribunal, REJETTE la requête pour radiation de l’avis de préinscription; AVEC DÉPENS.

*** [8] In her motion for leave to appeal, Ms. Lapin submits that the judge erred in law by failing to appreciate that

an act of gift is apersonal right and not a real right (“qu’un acte de donation est un droit personnel et non réel”). Citing in particular Re/Max 2001 inc. v.El Hayek[2], she argues that the judicial demand does not concern a real right and, thus, contrary to what the judge decided,

article 2966C.C.Q. cannot apply. In the circumstances, the judge should have cancelled the notice of advance registration. [9] Ms. Lapin argues, in addition, that the motions judge failed to provide sufficient reasons for the conclusions to which shearrived, which failure constitutes a further overriding error. *** [10] The motion for leave is governed by articles 29 and 511 C.C.P. [11] The petitioner has not convinced me that the interlocutory judgment dismissing the motion to cancel a notice of advanceregistration is susceptible of appeal according to the criteria set forth in paragraph 1 of

article 29 C.C.P. [12] The interlocutory judgment dismissing a motion to cancel the notice of advance registration does not decide in part the matter indispute, nor does it unnecessarily delay the trial of the dispute. Moreover, it does not plainly order the doing of anything that cannot beremedied by the final judgment: in the event that the final judgment either grants or dismisses the action to revoke the gift, the noticewould be removed, leaving the immovable free and clear of that encumbrance. [13] It is not, however, necessary to decide the matter on this basis. [14] Whether or not the interlocutory judgment is susceptible of appeal under

article 29 C.C.P., leave should not be granted becausean appeal, if leave were granted, would have no reasonable chance of success. In my view, the proper measure of the “pursuit ofjustice/les fins de la justice” under

article 511 C.C.P. as applied to this case, as well as the principle of proportionality in

article 4.2,require that leave be refused for this very reason. [15] Ms. Lapin’s argument in support of leave that the act of gift “is a personal right and not a real right” is misleading as stated[3]and, with respect, appears to misapprehend the question before the motions judge as to whether the principal action to revoke a giftconcerns a real right. [16] What is relevant to the law relating to the publication of rights in this case is that the act of gift between Isidore and HaroldLapin, as donors, and Janice Lapin, as donee, is a juridical act effecting the transmission of an immovable real right of ownership thatrequires publication according to

article 2938 C.C.Q. (rightly cited by the judge). The principal action brought by Isidore Lapin to annulthe act of gift is thus a “judicial demand concerning a real right which shall or may be published in the land register/demande de justicequi concerne un droit réel soumis ou admis à l’inscription au registre foncier” under

article 2966, para 1 C.C.Q. (also rightly cited by thejudge). [17] It bears noting that the judicial demand in this case is not a Paulian action or a cadastral operation, circumstances in whichdoubts have been raised as to the proper application of

article 2966 C.C.Q. In our case, the judicial demand seeks to annul a juridical actthat transferred ownership from Isidore and Harold Lapin to Janice Lapin. As this Court recently held in D.R. v. De.R[4]: [9] En somme, le cas à l’étude ne peut se comparer à celui qui a donné lieu à l’arrêt de la Cour dans Aéroterm de Montréal [ (CAQ]. Le contrat au centre du litige n’est pas une promesse bilatérale de vente ou d’achat; c’est une vente translative depropriété immobilière. La conclusion principale de l’action de l’appelante recherche clairement le constat de nullité du

titre détenu parl’intimé en raison de cette vente et, de façon corrélative, la reconnaissance du droit de propriété du vendeur, M. S... R.... Sous ce rapport,la demande en justice entre directement dans la sphère d’application de l’article 2966 C.C.Q., lequel doit être lu en conjugaison avecl’article 2938 C.c.Q. : 2938. Sont soumises à la publicité,l'acquisition, la constitution, lareconnaissance, la modification, latransmission et l'extinction d'un droit réelimmobilier.

Le sont aussi la renonciation à unesuccession, à un legs, à une communautéde biens, au partage de la valeur desacquêts ou du patrimoine familial, ainsi quele jugement qui annule la renonciation. Les autres droits personnels et les droitsréels mobiliers sont soumis à la publicitédans la mesure où la loi prescrit ou autoriseexpressément leur publication. Lamodification ou l'extinction d'un droit ainsipublié est soumise à la publicité. 2938. The acquisition, creation, recognition,modification, transmission or extinction of animmovable real right requires publication.

Renunciation of a succession, legacy,community of property, partition of the valueof acquests or of the family patrimony, and thejudgment annulling renunciation, also requirepublication. Other personal rights and movable real rightsrequire publication to the extent prescribed orexpressly authorized by law. Modification orextinction of a published right shall also bepublished.

2966. Toute demande en justice qui concerne un droit réel soumis ou admis à l'inscription sur le registre foncier, peut, au moyen d'un avis, faire l'objet d'une préinscription. La demande en justice qui concerne un droit réel mobilier qui a été inscrit sur le registre des droits personnels et réels mobiliers, peut aussi, au moyen d'un avis, faire l'objet d'une préinscription. 2966. Any judicial demand concerning a real right which shall or may be published in the land register may, by means of a notice, be the subject of an advance registration.

A judicial demand concerning a movable real right entered in the register of personal and movable real rights may also, by means of a notice, be the subject of an advance registration. [10] La demande de nullité de la vente et celle visant la reconnaissance du

titre de M. S... R... concerne [nt] des droit [s] réel [s] soumis à l’inscription sur le registre foncier . Il s’ensuit que la procédure instituée par l’appelante pouvait faire l’objet d’une préinscription. [ 18 ] The present case does not of course concern a “vente translative de propriété”, as in D.R. , but

an act of gift which, in the circumstances, is nevertheless a “translatory act of ownership” [5] (acte translatif de propriété), in that it transmitted the right of ownership between the donors and the donee. As counsel for Mr. Lapin rightly argues, the reasoning in D.R. is fully applicable to this case, mutatis mutandis . [ 19 ] As such, the action to revoke the act of gift is the proper subject of a notice of advance registration/ avis de préinscription because it concerns the real right of ownership of the immovable in dispute.

This is what the judge decided in the interlocutory judgment and her reasons were both succinct and complete. [ 20 ] An appeal of this point would fall on deaf ears in this Court. As the appeal would have no reasonable prospect of success, leave should be refused in chambers to put an end to the matter. [6] [ 21 ] In so deciding, I of course make no comment on the merits of the principal action. FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED REASONS , the undersigned, [ 22 ] DISMISSES the motion, with costs. NICHOLAS KASIRER, J.A.