2013 QCCA 723, 2013 QCCA 723

Murray c. Bromberg 2013 QCCA 723 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-023426-133 ( 500-22-181410-112 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: April 19, 2013 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CLÉMENT GASCON, J.A. PETITIONER ATTORNEY(

S) LAVANDRIA ALETHIA MURRAY Me John Seymour Glazer LEITHMAN & GLAZER RESPONDENT(

S) ATTORNEY(

S) STEVEN BROMBERG Me Harvey Toulch MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE QUEBEC COURT RENDERED ON FEBRUARY 22, 2013, BY THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE BRIGITTE CHARRON

Clerk: Elena Captari Court Room: RC.18 HEARING 12 h 14 : Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. 12 h 15 : Submissions by Mtre Glazer. 12 h 40 : Submissions by Mtre Toulch. 12 h 57 : Reply by Mtre Glazer. 12 h 59 : Suspension of the hearing. 13 h 09 : Resumption of the hearing. See the judgment on page 3. 13 h 12 : End of hearing.

Elena Captari Clerk JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Defendant seeks leave to appeal from a judgment rendered orally by the Court of Québec, District of Montreal (the Honourable Madam Justice Brigitte Charron), on February 22, 2013. [ 2 ] The judgment maintained, in part only, the amended claim of Plaintiff in continuance of suit for $62,365.47 (plus interest at the rate 15% per annum, as of April 26, 2011) against Defendant for a balance owed on a loan following the sale of an immoveable property. [ 3 ] The judgment in fact accepted many of the arguments raised by Defendant and limited the condemnation to an amount of $32,005.04, with interest at the legal rate only from the date of service. [ 4 ] Even though the transcript of the judgment rendered orally is limited to a mere 4½ pages, double space, the alleged errors raised by Defendant in the Motion for leave to appeal cover more than 5 pages, single space. [ 5 ] I will readily concede to Defendant that the judgment is poorly written and poorly motivated.

It is indeed hard to follow the exact reasoning of the judge. From that standpoint, the parties were entitled to receive reasons much more articulated that the ones they were provided with. No doubt, better justification and intelligibility would have been preferable. [ 6 ] However, here, notwithstanding the poor quality of the reasons, the outcome remains understandable and can be somewhat explained. In the end, the judge accepted many of the complaints of the Defendant and limited the amount owed to the capital and interests accumulated as of the end of 2009, and not beyond.

[ 7 ] The unexplained figure ($32,005.04) retained by the judge corresponds indeed to the amount of the line item of September 23, 2009 ($32,917.72) in the statement of account at the basis of the claim, to which the judge credited the three following months of October, November, December 2009 (3 X $446.97), but added back the unpaid amount for the month of January 2010 ($428.23). [ 8 ] That said, the basis of the claim was, after all, a written loan agreement following the sale of an immoveable property, with respect to which a balance of capital and interest was still owed.

Bearing this in mind, the Defendant does not satisfy, in my view, the criteria set forth in Article 26 (2) 5° C.C.P . [ 9 ] The matter at issue is not one that I consider should be submitted to the Court as no question of principle, no new issue or no question of law that has given rise to conflicting judicial precedents exist in this case. [ 10 ] The issue of lesion raised in argument by Defendant is, in essence, a question of fact. The alleged applicability of the Consumer Protection Act argued by Defendant is doubtful at best.

In addition, given the amounts involved, the principles of proportionality militate against the granting of leave to appeal in this matter. FOR THESE REASONS : [ 11 ] The Motion for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs. CLÉMENT GASCON, J.A.