2020 QCCA 65, 2020 QCCA 65

Droit de la famille — 2031 2020 QCCA 65 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-027996-180 (500-12-322584-149) DATE: 16 janvier 2020 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE, J.A. MARIE-JOSÉE HOGUE, J.A. S. I. APPELLANT/INCIDENTAL RESPONDENT – Defendant/Cross-plaintiff v. E. H.

RESPONDENT/INCIDENTAL APPELLANT – Plaintiff/Cross-defendant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC REGISTRAR OF CIVIL STATUS IMPLEADED PARTIES – Impleaded parties JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The appellant filed an application to present indispensable new evidence in support of her appeal (art. 380 C.C.P. ). [ 2 ] This new evidence consists of various, disparate documents (some of which are related to court proceedings in other files): e- mails, police reports or declarations, Facebook pages, excerpts of proceedings and judgments in other cases, pictures of moveable effects allegedly belonging to the appellant or forming part of the family patrimony, birth certificate of the child of the respondent and his new spouse, decision of the Ecclesiastical Court of the Diocese of Town A and Canada ([…] Church) declaring void and null the religious marriage of the parties and that of the respondent’s new spouse and her former husband, medical record, etc. [ 3 ] According to the appellant, this new evidence shows that a fraud was perpetrated on the Superior Court, that the respondent’s testimony and that of his witnesses at trial were lies and had no actual credibility and that she was consequently stripped of her rights on moveable property that she either owned or that was part of the family patrimony.

More generally, she alleges that the respondent is or was a gambler who wasted the parties’ money and property, hence her requests for the unequal partition of the family patrimony and for spousal support (both of which were, in her opinion, unduly dismissed by the trial judge). * * [ 4 ] The application does not fulfil the requirements of art. 380 C.C.P , as interpreted by a long line of cases [1] . The evidence that the appellant seeks to introduce is neither new (most of it could indeed have been brought before the trial judge with the appropriate diligence [2] ) nor relevant to the issues in appeal.

In fact, under the guise of introducing new evidence that would shed a different light on the matters at stake, the appellant is trying to add to the appeal questions and issues that were not discussed or raised before the trial judge, and that are for the most part unrelated to the divorce of the parties. Finally, on its face, the evidence that the appellant wishes to introduce in the appeal record appears to have little or no significant probative value. [ 5 ] Considering the stringent requirements of art. 380 C.C.P. and the applicable caselaw, the Court has no choice but to dismiss the appellant’s application.

FOR THE ABOVE-MENTIONED REASONS, THE COURT: [ 6 ] DISMISSES the application to present indispensable new evidence, without judicial costs. MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A.

GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE, J.A. MARIE-JOSÉE HOGUE, J.A. Mrs. S. I. Unrepresented Mr. M. H. Unrepresented Mtre Gabrielle Robert BERNARD ROY (JUSTICE QUEBEC) For the impleaded parties Date of hearing: January 13, 2020