Klasa c. Klasa 2018 QCCA 331 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-027126-176 (500-14-051364-172) (500-14-051401-172) DATE: March 1, 2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MARIE ST-PIERRE, J.A. MARIE-JOSÉE HOGUE, J.A. CLAUDINE ROY, J.A. DALYA FEARMYE KLASA DALYA KLASA, as tutor to her son Yan Amir Klasa APPELLANTS – defendants v. MARC KLASA SANDY J.

KLASA RENÉE-CLAUDE TREMBLAY RESPONDENTS – plaintiffs JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The respondents seek the dismissal of the appeal – filed by notice of appeal, without leave from the Court or one of its judges – from a judgment rendered by the Superior Court (Chantal Corriveau, J.S.C., “the judge”) on September 29, 2017, which (1) dismissed the appellant’s defence in record number 500-14-051364-172, (2) suspended this file until the appellant paid $2,000 to counsel for the opposing party, (3) ordered the appellant and another person to attend pre-trial examinations on October 20, 2017, (4) authorized the presentation of an application for dismissal in record number 500-14-051401-172 at a date to be set between December 4 and 8, 2017 and (5) issued various safeguard orders to benefit the succession (ordering inventory of the succession's property and authorizing the retention of counsel for the purposes of an appearance in a dispute commenced against the succession in Ontario). [ 2 ] They submit that the appeal is improperly initiated because no leave to appeal was requested or granted, despite the appeal being subject to leave. [ 3 ] They add that that the appeal is moot in many respects and that the appellant has acknowledged the validity of the judgment subsequent to its notice of appeal by executing a number of the orders (the appellant paid the $2,000 and submitted to the pre-trial examination on the scheduled date).

In their view, leave to appeal should not have been granted, at any rate, because the criteria set out at ss. 9, 18 and 31 or 32 C.C.P . , as the case may be, are not met. [ 4 ] In short, in their opinion, the appeal has no reasonable chance of success and should be dismissed. [ 5 ] We share their views. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 6 ] GRANTS the application to dismiss the appeal, with legal costs; [ 7 ] DISMISSES the appeal, with legal costs. MARIE ST-PIERRE, J.A. MARIE-JOSÉE HOGUE, J.A.

CLAUDINE ROY, J.A. Dalya Klasa In person Mtre Marie-Claude Dumas Laframboise Gutkin For the respondents Date of hearing: February 26, 2018