2024 QCCA 112, 2024 QCCA 112

Droit de la famille — 24103 2024 QCCA 112 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09- 030790-232 ( 500-12-332049-166) MINUTES OF HEARING WARNING : Disclosure and circulation prohibited: The Code of Civil Procedure (“ C.C.P .”) provides that, except as authorized by the court, no person shall disclose or circulate any information that would allow a party or a child whose interests are at stake in a proceeding in a family matter to be identified (art. 16 C.C.P .). DATE: January 29, 2024 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS DOYON, J.A. CHRISTINE BAUDOUIN, J.A. PETER KALICHMAN, J.A.

APPELLANT COUNSEL S. R. ABSENT AND UNREPRESENTED RESPONDENT COUNSEL C. M. Mtre MURIEL LIBRATI ( Teitelbaum Librati ) By videoconference Mtre ALESSIA CHIARALUNA ( Teitelbaum Librati ) DESCRIPTION: Motion to dismiss the appeal (art. 365 CCP ). Clerk at the hearing : Ariane Simard-Trudel Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING

14:26 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. Preliminary remarks by the Court. Mr. R. is absent. 14:27 Submissions by Mtre Librati. 14:29 Question from the Court and answer by Mtre Librati regarding the designation of the appellant as a quarrelsome litigant. 14:33 Recess of the hearing. 14:36 Resumption of the hearing. 14:42 BY THE COURT : Judgment – see page 3. 14:43 Conclusion of the hearing.

Ariane Simard-Trudel, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT WARNING : Disclosure and circulation prohibited: The Code of Civil Procedure (“ C.C.P .”) provides that, except as authorized by the court, no person shall disclose or circulate any information that would allow a party or a child whose interests are at stake in a proceeding in a family matter to be identified (art. 16 C.C.P .). [ 1 ] The respondent brings a motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that it was improperly instituted and has no reasonable chance of success. [ 2 ] Without addressing the question of whether or not the appeal has a reasonable chance of success, the Court agrees that it was filed beyond the thirty-day delay set out at s. 21 (3) of the Divorce Act and has thus been improperly instituted.

This is sufficient to dismiss the appeal. [ 3 ] The Court adds that in such situations, a party can present an application to extend the delay in which to appeal. However, the appellant has presented no such application here. [ 4 ] The Court further adds that the appellant, who resides in Europe, brought a motion to postpone the hearing due, primarily, to a previously scheduled business meeting. The Court dismissed this motion. The appellant did not attend the hearing today which, it should be added, took place at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, although he was invited to participate virtually.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 5 ] GRANTS the motion to dismiss appeal; [ 6 ] DISMISSES the appeal; [ 7 ] THE WHOLE without judicial costs, given the nature of the file. FRANÇOIS DOYON, J.A. CHRISTINE BAUDOUIN, J.A. PETER KALICHMAN, J.A.