2019 QCCA 2226, 2019 QCCA 2226

Droit de la famille — 192659 2019 QCCA 2226 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-028737-195 ( 550-12-035383-198 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: December 23, 2019 THE HONOURABLE STEPHEN W. HAMILTON, J.A. APPLICANT COUNSEL G. E. Mtre Denise Boivin Absent RESPONDENT COUNSEL M. S. Mtre Eve Lapointe ( Noël & Associés )) Absent DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment rendered in the course of the proceeding on November 27, 2019 by the Honourable Carole Therrien of the Superior Court , District of Gatineau (Art. 31 C.p.c. ).

Clerk at the hearing : Mélanie Camiré Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING Continuation of the hearing held on December 20, 2019. The parties were excused from appearing in Court. BY THE JUDGE: Judgment – see page 3.

Mélanie Camiré, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Petitioner seeks leave to appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, District of Gatineau (the Honourable Carole Therrien), rendered on November 28, 2019 establishing the interim measures in the context of the parties’ divorce. The Petitioner seeks leave to appeal on a number of issues, including custodial arrangements, child support, occupation rent for the family residence and a provision for costs.

She also argues that the judge failed to deal with a number of issues, including the use of the family vehicle. [ 2 ] During the hearing before me, the parties were able to agree on the use of the family vehicle, the right of first refusal on the exercise of custody rights and the sharing of the cost of before and after school care. This agreement will be detailed in the conclusions. [ 3 ] In order to obtain leave on the remaining issues, the Petitioner must show that the judgment determines part of the dispute or causes irremediable prejudice, pursuant to

Article 31 , paragraph 2 C.C.P. Furthermore, leave will only be granted if it is in the best interests of justice and if the decision to do so is in keeping with the principle of proportionality (Articles 9 and 18 C.C.P. ). [ 4 ] The temporary character of judgments on interim measures means that those judgments do not generally determine part of the dispute or cause irremediable prejudice. Moreover, this Court owes significant deference to decisions rendered in first instance particularly on custody matters.

As a result, leave will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. [1] [ 5 ] In the present case, leave should be refused. [ 6 ] Given the essentially temporary nature of the judgment on interim measures and the agreement reached on a number of issues, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the judgment will cause irremediable prejudice. Moreover, considering the high degree of deference in respect of interim judgments bearing on custody, I am of the view that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success. THEREFORE , THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 7 ] TAKES ACT of the following agreement: a.

The Petitioner will have the use of the Volkswagen Tiguan that she is currently using, and the Respondent will assume its monthly payments for lease, insurance and registration, until a new judgment is rendered; b. The parties will have a mutual right of first refusal to take care of their son when the other parent is unavailable to personally take care of him; c.

The parties agree to share the costs of before and after school care for their son in proportion of their revenues, which currently represents 75% for the Respondent and 25% for the Petitioner, the whole without admission, the parties reserving their right on that matter. [ 8 ] DISMISSES the application for leave to appeal, without legal costs given the nature of the dispute. STEPHEN W. HAMILTON, J.A.