2011 QCCA 520, 2011 QCCA 520

Droit de la famille — 11666 2011 QCCA 520 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-020420-105 ( 500-12-287316-065 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: March 14, 2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE YVES-MARIE MORISSETTE, J.A. LORNE GIROUX, J.A. GUY GAGNON, J.A. APPELLANT ATTORNEY M. S. Mtre Ewa Gerus RESPONDENT ATTORNEY A. I. Mtre Muriel Librati ATTORNEY

Respondent's motion to homologate a consent agreement signed between the parties during a settlement conference. Respondent's motion to proceed with an incidental appeal outside the required delays. Requête de l'appelante en prolongation de délais pour produire son mémoire. Clerk: Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 14 h 08 Beginning of the hearing.

On the motion to homologate a consent agreement signed between the parties during a settlement conference: 14 h 10 Submission by Mtre Librati. 14 h 17 Argumentation de Me Gerus. 14 h 30 Reply by Mtre Librati. 14 h 35 Recess. 14 h 40 Resumption of the hearing. 14 h 49 Remarks by the Court on the Appellant's affidavit. 14 h 42 Recess. 15 h 07 Resumption of the hearing. 15 h 07 By the Court: judgment (see next page). Robert Osadchuck Clerk BY THE COURT

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Appellant appealed from a judgment of January 18, 2010 whereby the Superior Court granted her a divorce. [ 2 ] A mediation conference in the Court of Appeal, and which involved two sets of meetings with a judge of the Court, in April and May 2010, resulted in a settlement dated May 17, 2010 signed by both parties, who were then represented by counsel. [ 3 ] According to the documentation now before the Court, it appears that, as of May 20, 2010 the Appellant, who had consulted with her son, was now questioning the fairness of the settlement. [ 4 ] Appellant twice changed counsel after that date.

Nevertheless, no attempt was made thereafter by her to challenge the validity of the settlement. [ 5 ] On September 7, 2010 the Respondent brought a motion to homologate the settlement which was met, on December 3, by an affidavit sworn by the Appellant and which raised various grounds to challenge the said settlement. [ 6 ] In view of the sketchy content of the file in the Court of Appeal, of the absence of any reference to the settlement in the Appellant's motion to extend the time to file her factum, and in view also of the fact that Appellant never properly challenged the settlement of May 17, the matter must now be considered settled.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 7 ] GRANTS the motion to homologate, without costs; [ 8 ] HOMOLOGATES and RENDERS EXECUTORY the agreement signed by the parties on May 17, 2010; [ 9 ] ORDERS the parties to conform therewith; [ 10 ] The other two motions are consequently moot, and are DISMISSED , without costs. YVES-MARIE MORISSETTE, J.A. LORNE GIROUX, J.A. GUY GAGNON, J.A.