2021 QCCA 85, 2021 QCCA 85

Hrabovskyy c. Attorney General of Canada 2021 QCCA 85 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-029202-207 ( 500-17-110370-197 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: January 18, 2021 THE HONOURABLE MARK SCHRAGER, J.A.

APPLICANT COUNSEL Volodymyr Hrabovskyy Unrepresented By videoconference RESPONDENTS COUNSEL ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Mtre JESSICA PIZZOLI ( Ministère de la justice Canada ) By videoconference ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC Mtre DAVID TREMBLAY ( Bernard, Roy (Justice-Québec) ) By videoconference DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment terminating the proceedings rendered on November 3, 2020 by the Honourable Karen M. Rogers of the Superior Court , District of Montreal (Art. 30 para. 1, 30 para. 2 (3), 81, 142 and 357 C.C.P. ).

Clerk at the hearing : Mélanie Camiré Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING 11:31 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. Preliminary comments. Submissions by Mr. Hrabovskyy.

11:46 Submissions by Mtre Tremblay. 11:54 Submissions by Mtre Pizzoli. 11:55 Reply by Mr. Hrabovskyy. 12:00 BY THE COURT: Judgment – see page 3. Conclusion of the hearing. Mélanie Camiré, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] I am tasked with the adjudication of an Application for leave to appeal the judgment rendered on November 3, 2020, by the Superior Court, District of Montreal (the Honourable Karen M.

Rogers), which granted Respondents’ motion to dismiss Applicant’s recourse and dismissed Applicant’s originating application declaring it to be abusive. [ 2 ] Given the declaration of abuse, leave to appeal is required pursuant to Article 30(3) C.C.P. Such leave is granted where the “matter at issue is one that should be submitted to that Court, for example because it involves a question of principle, a new issue or an issue of law that has given rise to conflicting judicial decisions”. Moreover, the proper administration of justice must favour the granting of leave pursuant to

Article 18, para. 2 C.C.P. In this case, Applicant must not merely demonstrate an error in the judgment (particularly in the application of the rules governing abusive proceedings) but that a question going beyond the interest of the parties is at issue. [1] [ 3 ] Applicant did not file a copy of his introductory proceeding in first instance, which is given to the undersigned by Respondent, Attorney General of Canada.

Applicant seeks a condemnation against the Respondents to pay him pension benefits as a result of illness or injury sustained while doing laboratory work in Norway when he participated in a course of study working towards a master’s degree in chemistry. His claim for compensation to the Norwegian authorities was refused under the various regimes which were potentially applicable. He has sued Respondents for some vaguely alleged participation by them in a fraud perpetrated by the Norwegian authorities in the handling of his claim.

He has invoked various inter-governmental agreements and bilateral treaties between Respondents and Norway. [ 4 ] The lengthy and detailed judgment reviews the various positions underpinning Applicant’s action, where he argued that:

i) The C.C.P. including Articles 51 and following do not apply; ii) His Norwegian claim is equivalent to a claim in Canada; iii) The Superior Court has jurisdiction over the conclusions sought. [ 5 ] The judge concludes that the proceeding is governed by the C.C.P. (including Articles 51 and following) and that the allegations of conspiracy between the Norwegian, Canadian and Quebec governments are without merit. She states that: [44] The mere reading of the Originating Application demonstrates the exaggerated statements, reckless assertions and disproportionate claims.

The allegations and statements do not withstand careful analysis and are completely out of proportion to the issues involved. [45] The Originating Application is clearly abusive. [ 6 ] The judge continues her analysis that Applicant’s claims have no basis in law under the bilateral agreements and treaties invoked and that, moreover, Applicant has not filed claims with the Canadian or Quebec governmental authorities being the procedure indicated under the legislation he refers to. [ 7 ] Lastly, the judge describes Applicant’s behaviour both in the written proceedings and during oral argument as excessive, which I am not in a position to question. [ 8 ] I am shown nothing in the motion or notice of appeal that would cause me to question the correctness of any part of the judge’s analysis.

Most significantly, there is nothing resembling a question qualifying for leave under

Article 30 C.C.P. in the illogical and incoherent ramblings of the Application before me. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 9 ] DISMISSES the Application for leave to appeal a judgment terminating the proceedings with legal costs. MARK SCHRAGER, J.A.