2015 QCCA 2148, 2015 QCCA 2148

Hall c. Québec (Procureure générale) 2015 QCCA 2148 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-025403-155 (500-02-102767-022) DATE: December 23, 2015 IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HONOURABLE MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. ÉLAINE VÉRONICA HALL PETITIONER – Defendant/opponent v. LA PROCUREURE GÉNÉRALE DU QUÉBEC RESPONDENT – Plaintiff/respondent JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Petitioner seeks leave to appeal the judgment of the Court of Quebec, District of Montreal (the Honourable Antonio De Michele), rendered on June 2, 2015.

The judgment in first instance dismissed Petitioner’s opposition to a seizure by garnishment after judgment effected by the Respondent.

Given that the judgment of first instance pertains to the execution of a judgment, leave to appeal may be granted: 26. (…) (w)hen the matter at issue is one which ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal, particularly where, in the opinion of the judge, the matter at issue is a question of principle, a new issue or a question of law that has given rise to conflicting judicial precedents, (…) 26. [...] [l]orsque la question en jeu en est une qui devrait être soumise à la Cour d'appel, ce qui est notamment le cas s'il est d'avis qu'une question de principe, une question nouvelle ou une question de droit faisant l'objet d'une jurisprudence contradictoire est en jeu: [...] [ 2 ] With one exception, the motion raises questions of fact, which do not generally satisfy the criteria of

article 26 C.C.P. An appeal is not a second trial where new evidence may be introduced. An appeal is an exercise in correcting errors. In order for the Court of Appeal to intervene in a matter, errors of fact must be palpable and clearly made out in the motion for leave. That is not the case here. [ 3 ] The only question of law raised in the motion goes to the prescription of the judgments which Respondent sought to execute. The judgments were initially issued more than 10 years ago.

However, the judge concluded that payments made in partial satisfaction of Respondent’s claim constituted interruptions of prescription. The Petitioner pleads, in her motion, that this constitutes an error of law since only a judicial proceeding can interrupt prescription. This is incorrect.

Article 2898 C.C.Q. states as follows: 2898 . Acknowledgement of a right, as well as renunciation of the benefit of the time elapsed, interrupts prescription. 2898 . La reconnaissance d'un droit, de même que la renonciation au bénéfice du temps écoulé, interrompt la prescription. [ 4 ] Accordingly, a partial payment on account of a debt (whether the debt be validated in a judgment or not) can constitute an interruption of prescription. Moreover, An Act Respecting Income Support, Employment Assistance and Social Solidarity , [1]

Article 117 , second paragraph (replaced by Individual and Family Assistance Act ,

Article 101 , paragraph 2) [2] provides explicitly that payments made by the Minister by way of holdback and compensation, interrupt prescription. [ 5 ] In paragraph 12 of his judgment, the judge obviously arrived at the conclusion that the payments on account made by Petitioner as well as amounts held back and applied by way of compensation by Respondent had the effect of interrupting prescription. [ 6 ] The judge’s conclusion that prescription had been interrupted is supported by the judgment of this Court in Québec (Procureur général) v.

Girardot [3] where the facts were similar to those in the present case. [ 7 ] Given the foregoing, there is no question raised which is susceptible of constituting a ground of appeal which would satisfy the

criteria of

Article 26 C.C.P. FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 8 ] DISMISSES Petitioner’s motion for leave to appeal but without costs given the circumstances. MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. Élaine Véronica Hall In person Mtre Édith Jourdain Direction générale des affaires juridiques et législatives For Respondent Date of hearing: December 22, 2015