2017 QCCA 1972, 2017 QCCA 1972

Sanderson c. Malouf 2017 QCCA 1972 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-027117-175 (500-80-035236-174) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: December 7, 2017 THE HONOURABLE ALLAN R. HILTON, J.A. PETITIONER COUNSEL JACQUELINE SANDERSON Personally RESPONDENT COUNSEL MAAN MALOUF Mtre FELICIA MARINO (Gagnon et Associé

s) DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment rendered on September 21, 2017, by the Honourable Scott Hughes of the Court of Quebec, District of Montréal. Clerk: Quentin A. Desrosiers Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING

9:35 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. Recess of the hearing. 10:14 Resumption of hearing. Exchange between the Judge and Mtre Felicia Marino. 10:15 Arguments of Mtre Jacqueline Sanderson. 10:55 Arguments of Mtre Felicia Marino. 10:59 Reply by Mtre Sanderson. BY THE JUDGE: The motion is taken under advisement. Conclusion of the hearing. (

s) Quentin A.

Desrosiers Clerk BY THE JUDGE JUDGMENT [ 1 ] This is an application for leave to appeal a judgment rendered on September 21, 2017 by the Court of Quebec, District of Montreal (the Honourable Judge Scott Hughes) that dismissed the applicant’s motion for leave to appeal a judgment of the Régie de Logement rendered on April 12, 2017 that, amongst other conclusions, condemned her to pay the respondent $18,000 with interest and costs arising out of her departure from leased premises. [ 2 ] The applicant fully argued her case on the merits before me, in which she asserted, in essence, that the Régie decision misinterpreted the evidence, failed to consider that some of the evidence was perjured, and misapplied applicable legal principles. [ 3 ] The respondent’s submission was limited to one point: that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal form the Court of Quebec in the circumstances of this case.

Reference was made to s. 102 of the Act respecting the Régie du Logement , [1] which provides that a judgment of the Court of Quebec in such circumstances is “without appeal/sans appel”. The Court has given effect to that provision in Hu v. Montréal (Office municipal habitation de) [2] in granting a motion to dismiss an appeal inscribed as of right in similar circumstances from a judgment of the Court of Quebec. [ 4 ] This determination was evidently based on the Court’s earlier judgment in Lebel v.

Kanafani [3] to the effect that art. 26, para. 1(2) C.C.P. then in force, when read together with art. 31 C.C.P. , limited access to the Court of Appeal from the Court of Quebec to those cases in which that court exercised its role as a trial court, and not one sitting in appeal from an administrative tribunal. In that case, the administrative tribunal was the discipline committee for real estate brokers established pursuant to ss. 84 and 85 of the Real Estate Brokerage Act . [ 5 ] The applicant’s motion was brought pursuant to

article 30 C.C.P. on the basis that leave was required because the amount in dispute was less than $60,000. As it turns out, however, this Court has already decided that it may only entertain appeals from the Court of Quebec when it exercises its trial court jurisdiction. [ 6 ] I therefore lack jurisdiction to entertain the applicant’s motion, which is accordingly dismissed with legal costs. ALLAN R. HILTON , J.A.