2021 QCCA 1842, 2021 QCCA 1842

Droit de la famille — 212329 2021 QCCA 1842 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-029798-212 (500-12-347402-202) DATE: December 8, 2021 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE GUY COURNOYER, J.A. V. J. APPLICANT – Defendant v. D. V. RESPONDENT – Plaintiff JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Applicant seeks to appeal a judgment orally rendered in the course of the proceedings on November 16, 2021 and in writing November 18, 2021 by the Honourable Gregory Moore of the Superior Court, district of Montreal, granting in part a safeguard order.

He also seeks a partial stay of provisional execution of that judgment. [ 2 ] The judgment determines the quantum of spousal support and sets the amount of provision for costs. The Applicant seeks to reduce both the amount set by the first judge for support and provision for costs. [ 3 ] The judgment also authorized the Respondent to take possession of some artwork from the Applicant’s residence.

The Applicant argues that the judgment contains a determination of the ownership of property of the artwork. [ 4 ] The criteria for granting leave to appeal in such matters are very strict [1] . [ 5 ] With respect to spousal support and provision for cost, I detect no apparent error beyond a disagreement with the quantum sets, the Applicant does not establish any palpable and overriding error in appreciation of facts by the first judge.

Further, change of circumstances will justify a revision [2] . [ 6 ] One important focus of the Applicant is the fact that the judgment would have adjudicated the ownership of some artwork which is in dispute. [ 7 ] Clearly, the judgment authorizes the removal of some artwork from the Applicant’s residence. Be that as it may, as rightly acknowledged by the Respondent in her written submissions and orally, the judgment does not adjudicate the ownership of the artwork. [ 8 ] Whether or not the removal of the artwork should have been granted in the course of a safeguard order is a debatable issue.

Yet, it does not create a situation of irreparable prejudice justifying the granting of leave to appeal from this particular aspect of the safeguard order. [ 9 ] The Respondent readily concedes that she may not dispose of the artwork and she also recognized “a judge seized of a subsequent safeguard, provisional or the merits is not bound by the interim decision”. [ 10 ] In the absence of any issue of principle, new question of law or any irreparable prejudice, it is not appropriate to exceptionally grant leave to appeal in these circumstances.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 11 ] DISMISSES the Motion for leave to appeal; [ 12 ] DISMISSES the Motion for a stay of execution pending appeal; [ 13 ] WITHOUT costs, given the nature of the file. GUY COURNOYER, J.A. Mtre Robert Pancer

PHILLIPS FRIEDMAN KOTLER For the Applicant Mtre Linda Schachter DEVINE SCHACHTER POLAK For the Respondent Date of hearing: December 3, 2021