2017 QCCA 601, 2017 QCCA 601

Lichtman c. Royal Bank of Canada 2017 QCCA 601 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-026664-177 (500-17-086825-158) DATE: April 10, 2017 IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HONOURABLE MARIE ST-PIERRE, J.A. JOAN LICHTMAN PETITIONER – Defendant v.

ROYAL BANK OF CANADA RESPONDENT – Plaintiff JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Petitioner Joan Lichtman presents a motion entitled “Notice in leave to appeal from 7 February 2017 denial of Defendant’s motion in opposition to bailiff’s report, means of execution of fraudulently obtained judgment, and collocation scheme” – to obtain leave to appeal a judgment rendered by the Superior Court, District of Montreal (the Honourable Mr. justice Brian Riordan) dismissing her opposition. [ 2 ] The general circumstances that gave rise to this motion have been described lengthily in previous judgments of this Court or its judges.

Therefore, instead of repeating that background, I refer to these judgments to form part hereof ( 2016 QCCA 1279 , 2016 QCCA 1311 and 2016 QCCA 1672 ). [ 3 ] The property has been sold on December 14, 2016 and the execution report by Mtre Rachelle Ouellet, notary, acting as the designated officer, dated January 13, 2017 has been served and produced into the Superior Court record. [ 4 ] Since the judgment render on February 7, 2017 is ruling on execution matters, sections 9, 18 and 30 C.C.P. apply ( 141517 Canada ltée c. Morneau , 2016 QCCA 971 ; Mansury c.

A.A ., 2016 QCCA 840 , demande d’autorisation d’appel à la Cour suprême rejetée, 23 février 2017, n o 37051; Giroux c. Gauthier , 2015 QCCA 956 ). To obtain a permission to appeal, the petitioner has therefore the burden to establish that the matter raises an issue that ought to be submitted to the Court. [ 5 ] This burden can be discharged by demonstrating, namely, that the matter at issue is a question of principle, a new issue or a question of law that has given rise to conflicting judicial precedents ( Société en commandite Les bois de Pierrefonds c. Domaine de parc Cloverdale , 2007 QCCA 292 ; Grimard c.

Boucher , 2011 QCCA 1285 , paragraph 7 ; Allali c. Pilon , 2008 QCCA 158 ; Lamontagne c. Rheault , 2009 QCCA 684 ; Crédit Ford du Canada ltée c. Industrielle Alliance Pacifique , 2009 QCCA 755 ; Chhuon c. Société des casinos du Québec inc. , 2010 QCCA 221 ; Celliers Rosyma inc. c. Urgel Charrette Transport inc. , 2010 QCCA 1822 ; Brouillette c. Déom , 2011 QCCA 100 ; Re/Max Action (1992) inc. c. Dagan , 2011 QCCA 311 ; Albernhe c. Rondeau , 2013 QCCA 555 ; Perez c. Ranglin , 2014 QCCA 1588 ; Boccardi c.

Michaud , 2016 QCCA 338 ). [ 6 ] In the present circumstances, the petitioner has failed to discharge her burden: there is neither a matter of principle nor a new issue, nor a question of law giving rise to conflicting judicial precedents. Moreover, in my opinion, an appeal would have no reasonable chance of success. THEREFORE, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 7 ] DISMISSES the motion with judicial costs in favor of the respondent. MARIE ST-PIERRE, J.A. JOAN LICHTMAN In person Mtre Mary-Pier Marcheterre GOWLING WLG (CANADA) S.E.N.C.R.L., s.r.l. For the respondent

Date of hearing: March 30, 2017