2021 QCCA 562, 2021 QCCA 562

Feldman c. Feifer 2021 QCCA 562 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-029444-213 ( 500-17-112885-200 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: April 8, 2021 THE HONOURABLE FRÉDÉRIC BACHAND, J.A.

APPLICANT COUNSEL Glenn Joseph Feldman Mtre PHILIPPE TREMBLAY ( PLT LEGAL ) By videoconference RESPONDENTS COUNSEL Andrew Feifer Jonathan Jacob Feifer Mtre JASON NOVAK Mtre DAVID BANON ( Spiegel, Sohmer, inc. ) By videoconference IMPLEADED PARTY Revenu Québec ABSENT AND UNREPRESENTED DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment rendered in the course of the proceeding on March 9, 2021 by the Honourable Philippe Bélanger of the Superior Court , District of Montreal (Article 31 C.C.P. ). Clerk at the hearing : Anne Dumont Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING 11:53 Commencement of the hearing.

Identification of counsel. Preliminary remarks by the judge. 11:54 Submissions by Mtre Tremblay.

12:20 Questions by the judge and responses by Mtre Tremblay. 12:25 Discussion between the judge and Mtre Tremblay. 12:31 Submissions by Mtre Novak. 12:34 Question by the judge and response by Mtre Novak. 12:36 Mtre Novak resumes his submissions. 12:45 Reply by Mtre Tremblay. 12:48 BY THE JUDGE : Judgment – see page 3. Conclusion of the hearing.

Anne Dumont, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The applicant seeks leave to appeal from a judgment dismissing objections raised against a number of requests for documents made during the course of his pre-trial examination. [ 2 ] As my colleague Justice Hogue pointed out in 2018: “ [e]n règle générale et selon une jurisprudence bien établie, un jugement qui rejette une objection à la preuve au stade préliminaire ou ordonne la communication d’un document n’est pas appelable (hormis les cas mentionnés au premier alinéa de l’article 31 C.p.c.) puisque les juges d’appel considèrent qu’un tel jugement, rendu en cours d’instance, ne décide pas en

partie du litige et ne cause pas un préjudice irrémédiable à l’une ou l’autre des parties. ” [1] [ 3 ] I note that neither professional secrecy nor any other of the grounds set out in

article 31 para. 1 C.C.P. were invoked to support any of the now-disputed objections during the hearing before the Superior Court. Furthermore, the applicant has not convinced me that the proposed grounds of appeal raise new and important issues that deserve the Court’s immediate attention. [2] Lastly, I see no apparent weakness in the judgment from which the applicant seeks leave to appeal. FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 4 ] DISMISSES both the application for leave to appeal and the application to suspend provisional execution, with legal costs. FRÉDÉRIC BACHAND, J.A.