2020 QCCA 1279, 2020 QCCA 1279

Hrabovskyy c. Attorney General of Quebec 2020 QCCA 1279 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-029000-205 ( 500-17-110370-197 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: September 28, 2020 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE JACQUES CHAMBERLAND, J.A. ALLAN R. HILTON, J.A. GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE, J.A. APPLICANT VOLODYMYR HRABOVSKYY UNREPRESENTED RESPONDENTS COUNSEL ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC Mtre ANDRÉA BOIVIN-CLAVEAU Mtre DAVID TREMBLAY ( Bernard Roy – Justice-Québec) ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Mtre JESSICA PIZZOLI ( Department of Justice Canada ) DESCRIPTION: 1.

Motion for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada ( S. 37 Supreme Court Act ) 2. Suspension of the proceedings before the Superior Court until the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada (Article 49, al. 2 NCPC ) 3. Suspension of the Order of the Court of Appeal (Article 390, al. 2 NCPC and s. 65.1 Supreme Court Act ) Clerk at the hearing : Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING

14:31 pm Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel.14:31 pm Submissions by Mtre Hrabovskyy.14:48 pm Recess.14:54pm Resumption of the hearing.14:54 pm By the Court: judgment – see page 3. Robert Osadchuck, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [1] The context is one where the Applicant is suing the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of Quebec indamages. [2] On July 16, 2020, the Superior Court (Lanctôt J.) dismissed Mr.

Hrabovskyy's Motion to declare the defendants in default toabide by the dates and undertakings listed in the case protocol agreed to by the parties and to set the case down for judgment (art. 175C.C.P.). Lanctôt J. also set on October 5 and 6, 2020, for hearing the Motion to dismiss formed by each of the two Defendants. [3] On August 31, 2020, Savard J.A. dismissed Mr. Hrabovskyy's Application for leave to appeal from Lanctôt J.'s judgment,mentioning at para. 3 that “the Superior Court judgment does not determine part of the dispute between the parties nor does it causeirremediable injury” to the Applicant. [4]

Section 37 of the Supreme Court Act allows for the highest court of final resort in a province to grant leave to appeal from ajudgment of that court where ''the question involved in the appeal is one that ought to be submitted to the Supreme Court for decision.'' [5] The Applicant's Motion refers to two judgments: the first, by Lanctôt J. rendered on July 16, 2020 (see para. 1) and the second,by Savard J.A. on August 31, 2020 (see para. 2). [6] As far as Lanctôt J.'s judgment is concerned, this Court has no jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal.

Such leave, if any, will haveto be granted by the Supreme Court of Canada. [7] As far as Savard J.A.'s judgment is concerned, the Applicant must be reminded that s. 37 of the Supreme Court Act “(…) fellinto disuse because courts of appeal decided that this Court should determine its own workload and not by reason of any reluctance toreassess the merits for the purpose of identifying an issue fit to be decided by this Court” (Sopinka J. at para. 4 in Richter & PartnersInc. v. Ernst & Young, (SCC), [1997] 2 SCR 5).

In any event, the Court is of the view that the question involved in anappeal from the judgment of Savard, J.A. is not ''one that ought to be submitted to the Supreme Court for decision''. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [8] DISMISSES Applicant's Motion, with costs. JACQUES CHAMBERLAND, J.A. ALLAN R. HILTON, J.A. GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE, J.A.