2011 QCCA 1454, 2011 QCCA 1454

Nersésian c. Bakmazjian 2011 QCCA 1454 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-021690-110 500-17-061869-106 DATE: August 5, 2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE JACQUES DUFRESNE, J.A. NICOLE DUVAL HESLER, J.A. RICHARD WAGNER, J.A . ACHOT NERSÉSIAN APPELLANT/ Plaintiff v. CHAHÉ BAKMAZJIAN 9036-4167 QUEBEC INC. ED HOUSE (IN-HOUSE SOLUTIONS INC.) CAP TECHNOLOGIES INC. ERIC F. LEMIEUX RESPONDENTS/ Defendants and QUEBEC BAR ASSOCIATION IMPLEADED PARTY/ Impleaded party JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The origin of the litigation is the allegedly unlawful dismissal of Appellant.

The Commission des relations du travail rejected Appellant's position. Justice Pepita Capriolo, of the Superior Court, dismissed his Motion for Judicial Review. He then instituted a lawsuit against his former employer, an affiliated company, their executive officers, as well as their attorney. The Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss, which were granted below, hence his Appeal. [ 2 ] The judge of first instance came to the conclusion that the Motions to dismiss Appellant's proceedings were well founded because of the abusive nature of those proceedings.

She also granted a verbal Motion to declare Appellant a vexatious litigant because of his behaviour, which she found to be abusive and contemptuous of the justice system. [ 3 ] The Appellant's Inscription in Appeal is irregular in that he failed to obtain leave from the Court prior to filing it, contrary to sub-par. 4.1 of the second paragraph of

article 26 C.C.P. [ 4 ] In addition, we are unanimously of the opinion that the Appeal on the Motions to Dismiss has no reasonable chance of success.

[ 5 ] As to the part of the judgment below declaring Appellant a vexatious litigant, it is true that it can be appealed de plano . However, we are unanimously of the opinion that the Appeal on that part of the judgment is also doomed to fail.

It suffices to read the transcripts to understand that the Appellant, while he is clearly motivated by a personal sense of injustice, is in effect refusing to accept the finality of the decisions above mentioned and embarking on further proceedings which are directed not only against his former employer, but also against parties with whom he has no legal connection. [ 6 ] It is not necessary to address Appellant's contention that the judge would have supplied the plea of prescription, contrary to

article 2878 C.C.Q., as her judgment on the Motions to dismiss the proceedings in Superior Court is otherwise well founded. [ 7 ] For these reasons, the Motions to dismiss the appeal are granted , without costs, and the appeal is dismissed , without costs. JACQUES DUFRESNE, J.A. NICOLE DUVAL HESLER, J.A. RICHARD WAGNER, J.A. Achot Nersésian In person Mtre Roger Judd Jr. Chasé Bakmazjian 9036-4167 Québec In.c In-House Solutions Inc. CAP Technologies Inc. Mtre Maria De Michele DE MICHELE & AVOCATS Éric F. Lemieux Mtre André-Philippe Mallette NICHOLL, PASKELL-MEDE Quebec Bar Association Date of hearing: August 4, 2011