2022 QCCA 176, 2022 QCCA 176

R.A. c. A.AL. 2022 QCCA 176 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-029786-217 ( 500-17-108341-192 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: February 4, 2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MANON SAVARD, C.J.Q. ROBERT M. MAINVILLE, J.A. PETER KALICHMAN, J.A. APPELLANT R. A. ABSENT AND UNREPRESENTED Respondents A. AL. ABSENT AND UNREPRESENTED S. AL. H. AL. ABSENT AND UNREPRESENTED On appeal from a judgment rendered on October 18, 2021 by the Honourable Micheline Perrault of the Superior Court , District of Montreal .

DESCRIPTION: Motion for permission to file an incidental appeal after the expiry of time limit . (Article 363 C.C.P .) Motion to suspend and extend the time limit for an application to file an incidental appeal after the expiry of time limit. (Articles 363, 378, 379 et 390 C.C.P .) Clerk at the hearing : René Gutknecht Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault

HEARING 9:35 Continuation of the hearing held on January 31, 2022. The parties were excused from appearing in Court. Judgment – see page 3. Conclusion of the hearing René Gutknecht, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Applicant has filed a Motion for permission to file an incidental appeal after the expiry of the time limit.

He has also filed a motion entitled “Motion to suspend and extend the time limit for an application to file an incidental appeal after the expiry of time limit”, the conclusions of which are identical to those of the first. [ 2 ] The Applicant argues that he has serious grounds of appeal and that it was impossible for him to act sooner.

More specifically, he maintains that he attempted to obtain a legal aid mandate and to hire a lawyer but that he did not have enough time to complete either effort and was thus unable to respect the delay set out at paragraph 360 C.C.P. [ 3 ] The Court may authorize an incidental appeal, even after the time limit has expired but only if it considers it appropriate to do so. [1] In making this determination, the Court can consider all relevant factors, including the reasons for the delay, the diligence shown by the party seeking the delay as well as the conduct of that party in the wider context of the litigation. [2] [ 4 ] For the reasons that follow, the Court is of the view that it would not be appropriate to authorize the Applicant to file an incidental appeal. [ 5 ] Firstly, the documents filed by the Applicant as proof of his efforts to either obtain a legal aid mandate or hire a private attorney, fail to establish that his actions were serious.

It would appear that he failed to follow through on either initiative and does not explain what became of them. [ 6 ] Furthermore, there is nothing to indicate that the Applicant acted with diligence in seeking to respect the delay or to remedy it. On November 3, 2021, the Applicant was advised by the lawyer that he had been referred to that he required a deposit before providing a more in-depth analysis of the case. The Applicant failed to provide the deposit but continued to ask questions to the attorney.

On November 17, 2021, he received a reply from the attorney advising him that the delay to appeal expired on November 27, 2021 and reiterating the request for a deposit, which it seems he never provided. There is nothing to explain what steps the Appellant took next or why it was not until January 6, 2022, that he filed the first of the motions before the Court. [ 7 ] Finally, in light of the Applicant’s conduct over the course of the litigation, the Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion under

Article 363 C.C.P . The Motions are made in the context of a judicial saga that began with the filing of divorce proceedings by Appellant in 2005 and has continued unabated since then. At the root of most of these proceedings, is the Applicant’s failure to respect judgments awarding child support. The judgment in appeal in this case is no different. While it addresses the parties’ respective claims in compensatory and punitive damages, it deals primarily with the Appellant’s attempt to execute the financial conclusions of the judgment in divorce.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 8 ] DISMISSES the Motion for permission to file an incidental appeal after the expiry of the time limit, with judicial costs; [ 9 ] DISMISSES the Motion to suspend and extend the time limit for an application to file an incidental appeal after the expiry of time limit, without costs given that it was based on the same grounds and sought the same conclusions as the Motion for permission to file an incidental appeal after the expiry of the time limit. MANON SAVARD, C.J.Q.

ROBERT M. MAINVILLE, J.A. PETER KALICHMAN, J.A.