2018 QCCA 1050, 2018 QCCA 1050

D.B. c. M.B. 2018 QCCA 1050 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-027581-180 (500-14-040437-121) DATE: June 21, 2018 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. D. B. PETITIONER – Plaintiff v. M. B. RESPONDENT – Defendant and ESTATE OF THE LATE J. B. IMPLEADED PARTY – Impleaded party JUDGMENT [ 1 ] On June 11, 2018, the Superior Court, District of Montreal (the Honourable Madam Justice Michèle Monast), rendered the following judgment: VU l’avis de comparution donné par Me Jacqueline Sanderson attestant de son intention d’agir comme procureure pour madame D...

B... et de la représenter dans le cadre de la requête pour rejet de procédures abusives qui est présentée contre elle aujourd’hui ainsi que dans le cadre de procédures qui ont été déposées dans un autre dossier à Longueuil afin de réclamer le paiement d’une rémunération et de dépenses qu’elle aurait encourues à

titre de curatrice à la personne de son père, monsieur J... B…; VU la requête verbale en inhabilité présentée par madame M… B...; CONSIDÉRANT que Me Sanderson a déjà agi dans ce dossier comme procureure pour madame M… B... et qu’elle doit éviter de se placer en conflit d’intérêts en représentant des parties qui ont des intérêts opposés; CONSIDÉRANT que l’existence d'un litige entre Me Sanderson et madame M...

B... n’entraîne pas de la part de cette dernière une renonciation implicite à son droit au secret professionnel dans le présent litige, et que Me Sanderson est tenue à son devoir de confidentialité envers cette dernière malgré l’existence de procédures judiciaires; CONSIDÉRANT que madame D... B... avait connaissance que Me Sanderson avait représenté sa sœur, madame M...

B…, dans la présente cause ainsi que dans des dossiers connexes concernant le même litige lorsqu’elle lui a confié le mandat de la représenter; CONSIDÉRANT que l’audition de la demande de rejet pour procédures abusives est fixée depuis le 15 mars 2018 et que madame D...

B... a bénéficié d’un délai raisonnable pour se constituer un procureur; CONSIDÉRANT que la demande dont le Tribunal est saisi porte précisément sur un abus de procédures de la part de madame D… B…, et qu’une remise de l’audition doit être accordée seulement s’il est démontré que les circonstances peuvent le justifier vu le préjudice qui découlerait d’une remise pour la

partie adverse; CONSIDÉRANT que madame D... B... n’a pas fait preuve d’une diligence raisonnable pour se constituer un procureur; CONSIDÉRANT que la comparution tardive de Me Jacqueline Sanderson et son impossibilité d’agir dans la présente cause ne justifient pas une remise; Pour ces motifs exprimés verbalement et enregistrés numériquement, LE TRIBUNAL : DÉCLARE que Me Jacqueline Sanderson est inhabile à agir comme procureure pour madame D... B… dans la présente cause et dans tous les dossiers connexes portant sur le même litige; REJETTE la demande de remise présentée par madame D... B...; ORDONNE aux parties de procéder sur la demande en rejet pour abus de procédures;

LE TOUT , frais à suivre . [ 2 ] The matter was heard on June 11 and continued on June 12, with the respondent presenting her evidence. It was then adjourned until June 15, for the presentation of the petitioner’s defense. [ 3 ] On June 13, 2018, the petitioner sought leave to appeal the judgment of June 11 refusing to postpone the hearing (she did not seek to appeal the disqualification of her lawyer). Her motion was heard by the undersigned on the morning of June 15.

It was taken under advisement and a safeguard order issued staying the hearing before the Superior Court (that would otherwise have resumed in the afternoon). [1] * * [ 4 ] The parties have been engaged for years now in a legal battle over their late father’s inheritance and, before his death, the protection of his person and the administration of his property.

In the course of the numerous proceedings between the parties, the petitioner was declared a vexatious and quarrelsome litigant, pursuant to art. 55 C.C.P. , [2] and she was forbidden to file proceedings in any case arising from or related to the care of her father’s person or the administration of his property “or to the conduct of any past or future related proceedings”, [3] except with the prior authorization of the Chief Justice of the Superior Court. [ 5 ] On December 15, 2017, the petitioner obtained from the Chief Justice of the Superior Court the authorization to file proceedings against the respondent and the liquidator of their father’s estate, seeking the reimbursement of expenses allegedly incurred while she was taking care of her father and the payment of a remuneration for her services.

In February 2018, the respondent filed an “Application to declare proceedings and conduct to be an improper use of procedure and impose sanctions and application for safeguard orders”.

Among other things, the respondent requests that the petitioner be condemned to pay damages in the amount of $95,000 ($35,000 in extrajudicial costs, $10,000 in moral damages and $50,000 in punitive damages). [ 6 ] On March 15, 2018, after a short hearing attended by the petitioner (who was there in person but was not represented by counsel), the Superior Court ordered the following: For these reasons, the Court : SETS the date of the hearing of the application for one day on June 11 th , 2018; DECLARES that there will be no witnesses heard at said hearing; ORDERS the respondent to notify all the exhibits that she wants to submit to the Court in order to contest the Application on May 11 th , 2018 at the latest; AUTHORIZES the parties to serve or notify any further documents or proceedings by email at the following addresses: (…) ORDERS that no proceedings be filed by either parties in the four files concerned by this application between now and June 11 th , 2018; (…). [ 7 ] Three months later, on the morning of June 11, 2018, the petitioner appeared before the Superior Court, unexpectedly assisted by a lawyer who had, however, previously represented the respondent at an earlier stage of the parties’ ongoing dispute.

Upon verbal motion by the respondent, the lawyer in question was disqualified forthwith, but then asked that the hearing be postponed, since the petitioner intended to secure the services of another lawyer in order to defend herself against the respondent’s application. As indicated earlier, this request was denied, hence the petitioner’s motion for leave to appeal, which reads as follows: 1. The Appellant is requesting permission to appeal the Judgment of the Honourable Justice Monast, dated June 11, 2018; 2. Pursuant to

article 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure , the permission for appeal should be granted if the decision has caused a grave injustice to the Appellant which puts in disrepute the administration of justice; 3. The Appellant requires an attorney to represent her before the court and was denied a postponement in order to obtain the time and money to engage the services of an attorney; 4. The Appellant has been trying to find an attorney since January to replace the incompetent attorneys who had represented her in the past, however, all the lawyers require a retainer in advance.

Me Narang admitted in court that the Estate is almost complete and that the funds should be distributed shortly; 5. The liquidator of the Estate was chosen by the Respondent and is intentionally withholding funds from me in order to paralyze me before the courts so that I cannot pay for an attorney. This is a grave injustice; 6.

The Appellant needs a competent attorney because the Respondent recently induced the Superior Court in error to obtain a judgment by default even though my lawyer was present at the hearing; FOR THESE REASONS MAY IT PLEASE THIS HONOURABLE COURT OF APPEAL TO: GRANT permission to appeal the judgment of the Honourable Justice Monast, dated June 11, 2018. [ 8 ] On June 15, 2018, the petitioner provided the undersigned with a written argument, the last two paragraphs of which state that:

17. I am asking the court permission for a short postponement to obtain an advance on my inheritance so as to be able to pay for an experienced attorney; 18.

I respectfully suggest that the same judge, Michele Monast, could be seized of the case in first instance so that no additional court resources would be spent redoing Me Narang’s representations; [ 9 ] During the hearing of her motion for leave, the petitioner confirmed and expanded on the contents of these two paragraphs. * * [ 10 ] Leave to appeal will not be granted. [ 11 ] Firstly, the petitioner, who is by now an experienced litigator and has resorted to the assistance of lawyers from time to time, does not appear to have taken the steps required in order to find and secure counsel in due time.

Indeed, the right to counsel is not absolute (not even in criminal matters) [4] and it has to be exercised diligently. [ 12 ] In the present case, on March 15, 2018, the petitioner was expressly advised that the respondent’s application would be heard on June 11, 2018. She was unrepresented at the time but, despite the importance and urgency of the matter, she apparently waited until the last minute before seeking the assistance of a lawyer. Her situation differs in that respect from that of the appellant in Tannenbaum v.

Lazare . [5] It is true that in her written and oral argument, the petitioner stated that she contacted at least six lawyers, who would have accepted to represent her, but not without a $3,000 to $5,000 retainer that she is unable to pay.

On both fronts however, this assertion is not convincing in the absence of evidence, and even less so in light of paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of her motion for leave to appeal, which contains unsupported allegations that are quite typical of vexatious litigants (general incompetence of former lawyers, malicious conduct of the other parties, attempt by the other parties to mislead the court) and do adversely affect the petitioner’s credibility. [ 13 ] Secondly, not only is the petitioner arguing that she needs counsel but she intends to file yet another proceeding (which will require the authorization of the Chief Justice of the Superior Court) in order to get “an advance on her inheritance” or, possibly, a provision for costs that would enable her to pay her lawyer’s fees.

Within the context of the larger dispute between the parties, this certainly cannot justify that leave be granted. [ 14 ] Thirdly, in view of the judgment rendered by the undersigned on Friday, June 15, 2018, the hearing of the respondent’s application before the Superior Court will have to be rescheduled. According to the respondent, this may take a while, considering the limited availabilities of the Superior Court and those of the parties.

This will give the petitioner the time that she needs to diligently seek and obtain the services of a lawyer or to seek the authorization of the Chief Justice of the Superior Court if she still intends to ask for an advance on her inheritance or a provision for costs (which the Court of appeal could not have ordered even if leave had been granted). In both cases, the Superior Court will be in the best position to manage the situation with due respect for the rights of both parties. FOR THE ABOVEMENTIONED REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 15 ] DISMISSES the motion for leave to appeal, without costs in the circumstances.

MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. Ms. D. B. In person Mtre Geeta Narang Narang & associés, s.e.n.c. For Respondent Date of hearing: June 15, 2018