2016 QCCA 843, 2016 QCCA 843

Takefman c. Barreau du Québec 2016 QCCA 843 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-025921-164 (500-17-089263-159) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: May 5, 2016 THE HONOURABLE martin vauclair, J.A. PETITIONER ATTORNEY earl takefman in person RESPONDENT ATTORNEYS barreau du québec Mtre PIERRE BÉLANGER XAVIER LEGAULT MARTEL, Stagiaire (Bélanger Longtin sencrl) IMPLEADED PARTY ATTORNEY mTre guy bilodeau, in his capacity as SYNDIC of the Barreau du Québec, located at 445 St- Laurent blv., Montreal (Quebec) H2Y 3TB Mtre LOUIS MASSON, AD. E (Joli-Coeur Lacasse S.E.N.C.R.

L) DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment rendered on February 16, 2016, by David R. Collier of the Superior Court, district of Montreal Clerk: Shirley Thomas Courtroom: RC-18

HEARING 9: 38 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. The motion is contested. Mr. Takefman has no lawyer and represents himself. Mtre Bélanger files a book of sources, a book of various procedures below, his arguments and a USB key containing those documents, with the consent of Mr. Takefman. 9: 40 Representations by Mr. Takefman 9: 54 Recess. 9: 56 Resumption of the hearing. 9: 56 Exchange between the Judge and Mtre Bélanger. 9: 57 Representations by Mtre Bélanger. 10: 01 Reply by Mr Takefman. 10: 05 By the Judge: Judgment – see page 3. 10: 06 Conclusion of the hearing.

SHIRLEY THOMAS Clerk BY THE JUDGE JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Applicant seeks leave to appeal the interlocutory judgment of the Superior Court (Honourable David R.Collier), district of Montreal, rendered on February 16, 2016, in a case management conference. [ 2 ] The Applicant contends that the judge erred in ordering him “to direct all communications respecting the present litigation to the lawyers representing le Barreau, who will transmit the communication to the appropriate Directors or Officers of the professional Corporation” and in ordering him, “not to communicate directly with the Officers or Directors of the Barreau du Québec with respect to any issue raised by the present litigation”. [ 3 ] According to the Applicant, the rulings violate his rights and the law in many ways and raise “a new and important issue relating to the Court’s ability to violate the basic freedoms granted to the Applicant by applying a law intended for lawyers to a non- lawyer and by dictating who the recipients of Applicant’s freedoms must be directed”. [ 4 ]

Article 31 C.C.P. provides for the possibility of an appeal, with leave, of such a judgment if it determines part of the dispute or causes irremediable prejudice.

Article 32 C.C.P., however, provides that case management measures relating to the conduct of a proceeding cannot be appealed, with the exception if a ruling appears unreasonable in light of the guiding principles of procedure. [ 5 ] In view of those principles, after hearing the applicant and reading materials file, the Motion fails. [ 6 ] The judgment does not determine part of the dispute and it does not cause irremediable prejudice as understood by the jurisprudence, i.e. an irremediable legal prejudice. There was clearly a factual basis for the orders and the Applicant does not show that the decision falls within the exception of

article 32 C.C.P. [ 7 ] Therefore, I DISMISS the Motion for leave to appeal, with legal costs in favour of the Respondents

MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.A.