2017 QCCA 425, 2017 QCCA 425

Droit de la famille — 17502 2017 QCCA 425 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL Nos: 500-09-026583-179 500-09-026585-174 (500-12-332554-165) (500-17-[...]) DATE: MARCH 14, 2017 PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE PATRICK HEALY, J.A. N o : 500-09-026583-179 C D E APPELLANTS – defendants v. B RESPONDENT – defendant-plaintiff and F IMPLEADED PARTY – defendant N o : 500-09-026585-174 A APPELLANT – plaintiff v.

B RESPONDENT – defendant-plaintiff and C D E IMPLEADED PARTIES – defendants JUDGMENT [ 1 ] These reasons concern two motions in which the petitioners each seek leave to appeal a judgment of the Superior Court, District of Montreal (the Honorable Mr. Justice Pierre-C. Gagnon) delivered in a single set of reasons in two files, a family matter and a civil matter, [1] on 22 December 2016.

That judgment is entitled “ Jugement sur trois demandes interlocutoires .” The motion for leave to appeal in the Family Matter was filed in the Court of Appeal as 500-09-026585-174 and will be identified in these reasons as “Motion P.” The motion for leave to appeal in the Civil Matter was filed in the Court of Appeal as 500-09-026583-179 and will be identified in these reasons as Motion V. [ 2 ] The judgment of the Superior Court on 22 December 2016 is as follows: [55] AJOURNE la demande de recommander au juge en chef d’ordonner une gestion particulière de l’instance et ce, jusqu’à l’établissement du protocole de l’instance; [56] CASSE la citation à comparaître signifiée à Madame le 15 décembre 2016; [57] ANNULE la tenue de l’interrogatoire de Madame, prévu pour le 22 décembre 2016 et ce, jusqu’à l’établissement du protocole de l’instance; [58] PRONONCE la jonction du dossier C.S.

Montréal n o 500-12-332554-165 et du dossier C.S. Montréal n o 500-17-[...];

[59] PRÉCISE que les deux instances ainsi jointes sont réputées être en matière familiale, au sens des articles 15 et 16 du Code de procédure civile. [60] AVEC FRAIS de justice contre Monsieur. Motion P and Motion V both seek leave to appeal from the decision to join the Family Matter and the Civil Matter. Motion P, it appears, also seeks leave to appeal the decision to quash the summons to appear for examination in the Civil Matter.

If leave is granted, Motion P also seeks from a division of the Court various other declarations. [ 3 ] The matters determined in the decisions that the petitioners seek to appeal are properly characterised as “case management measures.” Accordingly, leave to appeal may not be granted unless the judgment of the Superior Court appears unreasonable in light of the guiding principles of procedure. [2] Otherwise there is no jurisdiction to grant leave. The standard imposed by the Code of Civil Procedure is exacting.

The jurisprudence in this regard does not allow leave upon any breach of a guiding principle of procedure, however slight it might be. The petitioner must show that the ruling appears unreasonable in light of the guiding principles of procedure. [ 4 ] The net effect of the judgment of the Superior Court is that there is now a single action comprising the surviving elements of the Civil Matter and the Family Matter. Nothing in that judgment puts a definitive end to any matter raised by the parties, including the matters raised by the petitioners in the Civil Matter.

The judgment of the Superior Court determines that the matters raised in the two files will be best heard in a single instance by a single judge. It was not unreasonable to conclude that the characterisation of the joined actions as a family matter best protects the interests of all concerned. The joinder of the Civil Matter and Family Matter lies within the discretion of the judge [3] as part of his authority to manage the case effectively in keeping with the principle of proportionality.

Far from appearing unreasonable, the judgment of the Superior Court will facilitate the orderly continuation of proceedings. [4] [ 5 ] Even if this matter were viewed as falling within

article 31 C.C.P., the petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the judgment causes him irremediable harm within the meaning of that criterion as settled in the cases. [5] FOR THESE REASONS the motions for leave to appeal are DISMISSED . [ 6 ] As this is a family matter, there will be no order for legal costs on these motions. PATRICK HEALY, J.A. Mtre Céline Tessier Séguin Racine, avocats ltée For C, D et E Mtre Mathieu Piché-Messier Mtre Karine Fahmy Borden Ladner Gervais Mtre Stéphane Pouliot Mtre Abigaëlle Allard-Robitaille Pringle avocats For B Mtre Louis P.

Bélanger Mtre Romy Proulx Stikeman Elliott Mtre Nicole Parent Nicole Parent avocate inc. Mtre Anne-France Goldwater Goldwater, Dubé For F and A Date of hearing: February 16, 2017