2023 QCCA 14, 2023 QCCA 14

Aziz c. Minister of Justice of Quebec 2023 QCCA 14 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-030338-222 ( 500-17-122416-228 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: January 11, 2023 THE HONOURABLE CHRISTINE BAUDOUIN, J.A.

APPLICANT Karim Aziz Unrepresented RESPONDENTS COUNSEL Minister of Justice of Quebec Mtre CÉDRIC THOMAS-DELAROSBIL ( Bernard, Roy (Justice – Québec)) Catherine Morneau in her quality as Director of the small claim division of Montreal Mariane Bastien in her quality as regional Director of the judicial services of Montreal ABSENT AND UNREPRESENTED On appeal from a judgment rendered on November 25 2022 by the Honourable Robert Castiglio of the Superior Court , District of Montréal .

DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal a final judgement granting motion to dismiss and dismisses petitioner's Application and petition for declaratory judgement, judicial review and mandamus and terminating the proceeding dated november 25 2022 Clerk at the hearing : Ariane Simard-Trudel Courtroom: RC-18

HEARING 11:25 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of parties. Preliminary remarks by the judge. 11:28 Submissions by Mr. Haziz. 11:43 Submissions by Mtre Thomas-Delarosbil. 11:45 Discussion between the judge and Mtre Thomas-Delarosbil. 11:55 Reply by Mr. Haziz. Discussion between the judge and Mr. Haziz. 12:01 BY THE JUDGE : Judgement – see page 4. 12:02 Conclusion of the hearing. Ariane Simard-Trudel, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Applicant seeks leave to appeal under

article 30 para. 5 C.C.P. from a Superior Court judgment rendered on November 25, 2022, by the Honourable Mr.

Justice Robert Castiglio, which granted the Attorney General of Québec’s motion to dismiss his originating application titled Application and petition for declaratory judgment and mandamus application and judicial review . [ 2 ] The reasons of Justice Castiglio read as follows: [1] CONSIDERING that petitioner has filed a small claim in the small claims division of the court of Quebec; [2] CONSIDERING that petitioner was informed by the clerk's office that his claim would not be submitted to of judge before a delay of approximately two and half (2 ½) years; [ 3 ] CONSIDERING that petitioner has not requested to be heard by priority under

article 51 of the Regulation of the Court of Québec, since he recognises that he does not meet the criteria mentioned in said article; [ 4 ] CONSIDERING that petitioner has filed an application for declaratory judgment, judicial review and mandamus requesting that the court issue the following orders: [9] So, petitioner seeking and requesting for a court order to be issued in this case against the administration and clerk's office of the small claim division of Quebec court and also the Mariane Bastien Regional director of the judicial Services of the Montreal courthouse, and also Sandra Blondeau director of the clerk's office of the court, and the Quebec Minister of justice, and directing them to provide a trial hearing date within a reasonable time of 4 to 6 months. [10] Also, petitioner seeking for a court order declaratory judgment to be issued and declaring that the current practice of delay of 2.5 years getting a trial hearing date in the small claim division of the Quebec court is unreasonable & abusive and outrageous and abuse of the citizen's rights which is very disgraceful and shameful and disgusting and very abusive. [11] Also, petitioner requesting that the court take judicial notice of the unreasonable outrageous practice injustico that currently provided and practiced in the small claim division to the Quebec court to the citizens and litigants that must be corrected. [12] Asking court to applying the standard of reasonableness of delay and send a clear message to the administration of courthouse of this outrageous disgraceful and shameful and disgusting and very abusive practice. [ 5 ] CONSIDERING that le Procureur Général du Québec requests that petitioner's application be dismissed under

article 168 (al.2) C.c.p since it is unfounded in law, even if the facts alleged are deemed to be true.

[ 6 ] CONSIDERING that petitioner's application must be dismissed for the following reasons:

a) Petitioner has not alleged any particular fact or circumstance applicable to him that would demonstrate that a delay of 2 ½ years is likely to cause him serious or irreparable harm;

b) A delay of 2 ½ years for petitioner's claim to be heard is not, in itself and without further allegation, an unreasonable delay.

c) As the Supreme Court has stated in the recent decision of Law Society of Saskatchewan c. Abrametz ( 2022 CSC 29 ) paragraph 47 , petitioner has no constitutional right, outside the criminal context, to be heard within a reasonable time.

d) No decision was rendered by the Court of Québec relating to the scheduling of petitioner's claim. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 7 ] MAINTAINS defendant's motion to dismiss; [ 8 ] DISMISSES petitioner's application and petition for declaratory judgment, judicial review and mandamus; [ 9 ] WITH legal costs. (Transcribed verbatim) [3] Pursuant to

article 30 paras 2(5) and 3 C.C.P. , the Applicant must show that the question raised is one that merits the attention of the Court, in particular where it involves a question of principle, a new issue or a question of law that has given rise to a conflict in the decided cases.

Even where such a question is raised, the appeal for which leave is sought must have a reasonable chance of success. [4] The 11 issues raised by the Applicant in his leave application fail to convince me that this appeal raises any question of interest and that, should it be authorized, it would have any reasonable chance of success. [1] FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [5] DISMISSES the Application for leave to appeal. [6] WITH legal costs. CHRISTINE BAUDOUIN, J.A.