2018 QCCA 436, 2018 QCCA 436
Opinion
Succession de Holand 2018 QCCA 436 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-027361-187 (500-22-233472-169) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: March 20, 2018 THE HONOURABLE GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE, J.A. PETITIONERS COUNSEL SHIRIT SARAH BENAMOU, in her capacity as Liquidator of the Estate of the Late Meir Holand ESTATE OF THE LATE MEIR HOLAND Mtre JASON NOVAK Mtre Alissa Stachrowski (De Grandpré Chait s.e.n.c.r.l.) RESPONDENT COUNSEL GOLDA HOLAND Mtre HOWARD L.
TATNER (Howard L.Tatner) DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment terminating the proceedings rendered on January 26, 2018 by the Honourable Nathalie Chalifour of the Quebec Court, District of Montreal. (Art. 30 al. 2, 357 C.C.P. ) Clerk: Mihary Andrianaivo Courtroom: RC.18
HEARING 11:20 Commencement of the hearing. Submissions by Mtre Jason Novak. 11:59 Submissions by Mtre Howard L. Tatner. 12:18 Rebuttal by Mtre Novak. 12:21 BY THE JUDGE: Judgment – See page 3. 12:23 Conclusion of the hearing. Mihary Andrianaivo Clerk BY THE JUDGE JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Applicant alleges a number of errors on the part of the trial judge regarding the administration and assessment of testimonial evidence, none of which raise questions of principle, a new issue or an issue of law that has given rise to conflicting judicial decisions.
In fact, the issues raised in this respect do not go beyond the interest of the parties to the litigation ( Elie c. Zeiman , 2016 QCCA 111 ; Carré Technologies inc. c Omsignal inc., 2016 QCCA 126 ). [ 2 ] As for the issue related to ultra-petita , they are devoid of merit and have no reasonable chance of success, given that the amount granted by the trial judge is lesser than the amount sought in the conclusions of the proceedings ( Marciano (Séquestre de ), 2012 QCCA 1879 ) and also, considering that the parties were heard on all issues dealt with in the judgment ( Continental Casualty Co c.
Taillefer , 2014 QCCA 2003 ). [ 3 ] Moreover, the Applicant does not demonstrate that the appeal sought is in the interest of justice. [ 4 ] As a result, the Applicant fails to meet the criteria set out under
article 30 C.c.p. to obtain leave to appeal. FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 5 ] DISMISSES the Motion for leave to appeal of the judgment. [ 6 ] WITH LEGAL COSTS . GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE , J.A.
Loading document…