2021 QCCA 937, 2021 QCCA 937

Verzilina c. Manakhov 2021 QCCA 937 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-029529-211 ( 500-17-074682-124 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: June 4, 2021 THE HONOURABLE PETER KALICHMAN, J.A. APPLICANT Tatiana Verzilina PRESENT AND UNREPRESENTED RESPONDENT COUNSEL Yury Vasilevich Manakhov Mtre MICHAEL PANDEV ( Pandev Longpré ) By conference call DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment terminating the proceeding rendered on May 14, 2021 by the Honourable Jérôme Frappier of the Superior Court , District of Montreal (Articles 30, para. 2 and 357 C.C.P. ).

Clerk at the hearing : Anne Dumont Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING 11:42 Commencement of the hearing and identification of the parties. Preliminary remarks by the judge. 11:43 Submissions by Mme Verzilina. 11:50 Question by the judge and response by Mme Verzilina. Mme Verzilina resumes her submissions.

11:55 Discussion between the judge and Mme Verzilina. 12:01 Submissions by Mtre Pandev. 12:07 Reply by Mme Verzilina. 12:12 BY THE JUDGE : Judgment – see page 3. Conclusion of the hearing. Anne Dumont, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Applicant seeks leave to appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court (the Honourable Mr.

Justice Jérôme Frappier) rendered on May 14, 2021, dismissing her application to intervene in an opposition to seizure brought by the defendant in first instance (the Defendant ). [ 2 ] The case in first instance began in 2012, when immovable property belonging to the Defendant was seized before judgment (the Seized Land ) by the Respondent, who was the plaintiff in first instance. [ 3 ] In 2019, a judgment was rendered in the Superior Court (Beaugé, J.) declaring the seizure valid and condemning the Defendant to pay $370,000 to the Respondent. [1] This judgment was appealed but the appeal was dismissed on March 9, 2020. [2] [ 4 ] On November 19, 2020, the Superior Court (Mayrand, J.) authorized the sale by judicial authority of the Seized Land. [ 5 ] The Defendant filed an opposition to the seizure which was scheduled to be heard on May 14, 2021.

On that day, the Applicant presented her “Application to Intervene-Intervention to the Defendant’s Opposition to Seizure or Sale”, seeking to be authorized to intervene “to protect her personal interest by supporting the Defendant’s Opposition to Seizure or Sale”. [ 6 ] The Applicant’s request to intervene was based on her business relationship with the Defendant.

According to the Applicant, she and the Defendant are involved in a joint real estate development project which included the Seized Land. [ 7 ] The motions judge postponed the hearing on the opposition to seizure to May 31, 2021 and dismissed the Applicant’s request to intervene for the following reasons: [1] CONSIDERING Tatiana Verzilina’s «Application to intervene-intervention to the Defendant’s opposition to seizure or sale dated May 11th, 2021»; [2] CONSIDERING that Court is seized of the Defendant's opposition to seize or sale in accordance to articles 735 and 657 of the Code Civil Procedure; [3] CONSIDERING the decision of Justice Sylvain Lussier dated March 26th, 2021 ordering that the hearing be held on May 14, 2021 for a duration of three hours; [4] WHEREAS the Demande to intervene is late and was not provided in a timely manner; [5] WHEREAS the only purpose of the application to intervene is to support the Defendant's demand in opposition to seizure or sale; [6] WHEREAS the intervenant had knowledge of the seizure before she claimed to have an interest in the immovables; [7] WHEREAS the intervenant does not demostrate a sufficient interest to bring a judicial application; [8] WHEREAS the application to intervene is not necessary for the complete resolution of the dispute before the Court; [9] CONSIDERING

article 85 and 184 of Code of Civil Procedure; [ 8 ] On May 31, 2021, the hearing of the Defendant’s opposition was postponed until August 24, 2021. According to the parties, this was done to allow for the present application to be heard and decided. [ 9 ] Leave to appeal from a judgment dismissing an application for voluntary or forced intervention of a third person is governed by Art. 30 para. 2 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.), which reads as follows: 30.

Judgments of the Superior Court and the Court of Québec that terminate a proceeding, and judgments or orders that pertain to personal integrity, status or capacity, the special rights of the State or contempt of court, may be appealed as of right. The following, however, may be appealed only with leave:

(…) (4) judgments denying an application for forced or voluntary intervention of a third person; [ 10 ] In order for leave to be granted, the Applicant must establish that the matter at issue is one that should be submitted to the Court, for example “because it involves a question of principle, a new issue or an issue of law that has given rise to conflicting decisions”. [3] Leave can also be granted if the Applicant demonstrates that the judgment is seriously flawed and creates a grave injustice. [4] Leave will only be granted if the appeal is in the interests of justice and does not contravene the principle of proportionality. [5] [ 11 ] The Applicant submits that this is a matter that should be submitted to the Court.

She argues that the motions judge neglected to take account of her interest in opposing the sale of the Seized Land and thus caused her harm. [ 12 ] I do not agree that leave should be granted. [ 13 ] Firstly, there is no principle at issue here. The Applicant raises no question that goes beyond her own private interest in the Seized Land, which, it should be added, is far from apparent since she recognizes that the Defendant is the registered owner.

It may well be that the sale of the Seized Land will cause prejudice to the joint venture between the Applicant and the Defendant, but that in itself does not justify leave being granted. [ 14 ] Second, the Applicant’s request to intervene sought only to make representations in support of the Defendant’s position and she fails to indicate what impact, if any, her support of the Defendant’s position might have had. What the Applicant indicates is that she wanted to be certain that the motions judge understood that the value of the Seized Land was far greater than Defendant’s debt to Respondent.

However, she acknowledges that there is nothing preventing the Defendant from making the same representations. Consequently, the Applicant has not convinced me that the judgment creates an injustice, much less a serious injustice. FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 15 ] DISMISSES the application for leave to appeal, with legal costs. PETER KALICHMAN, J.A.