2011 QCCA 2128, 2011 QCCA 2128

Liu c. McGill University 2011 QCCA 2128 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-022154-116 ( 500-53-000334-118 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: November 17, 2011 THE HONOURABLE JACQUES R. FOURNIER, J.A. PETITIONER ATTORNEY JISHENG LIU ABSENT RESPONDENT ATTORNEY McGILL UNIVERSITY Mtre Amélie Lavertu McCARTHY TETRAULT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT RENDERED ON MAY 30, 2011 BY THE HON. MICHELE PAUZE AND RENDERED ON OCTOBER 13, 2011 BY THE HON. JEAN-PAUL BRAUN Clerk: Annick Nguyen Court Room: RC.18

HEARING 9:22 Continuation of November 15, 2011, hearing. BY THE JUDGE. Judgment – See page 3. Annick NguyenClerk JUDGMENT [1] The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal of two judgments by the Tribunal des droits de la personne. [2] The first judgment was rendered by Judge Michèle Pauzé where she dismissed the petitioner's action against the respondentfor lack of jurisdiction. This judgment is dated May 30, 2011. [3] The second judgment was rendered by Judge Jean-Paul Braun on October 13, 2011, where he dismisses the petitioner'smotion in revocation of the first judgment. This motion was filed pursuant to

section 128 of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedom. [4] On July 30, 2009, the petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent with la Commission des droits de la personne et desdroits de la jeunesse. [5] The Commission found the complaint to be futile since the petitioner had exercised proper recourses elsewhere and decidedpursuant to

section 78 of the Charter to cease representing the petitioner. [6] The petitioner filed an action against the respondent who in return filed a declinatory motion on the basis that when theCommission closes it's file as it did pursuant to

section 78 of the Charter, the complainant does not have the right to file action to theTribunal des droits de la personne and that he can only sue before the ordinary courts. [7] Judge Michèle Pauzé agreed with the respondent and dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. [8] Judge Jean-Paul Braun found no grounds to revoked the judgment and dismissed petitioner's motion. [9]

Section 132 of the Charter provides that: Any final decision of the Tribunal may be appealed from to the Court of Appeal with leave from one of the judges thereof. [10] Judges of our Court have interpreted the provision as if dealing with second paragraph of

section 26 C.c.p., meaning that anapplication for leave to appeal will only be granted if the appeal would be of general interest of be concerned with serious questions ofprinciple[1]. [11] This is not the case in the present matter since the questions set for in the appeal have already been settled by decisions of ourCourt, namely Ménard c. Rivest, (QC CA), [1997] R.J.Q. 2108 and Centre Hospitalier St-Joseph-de-la-Malbaie c.Dufour, J.E. 98-2178 (C.A.). [12] I would further add that seeing this jurisprudence, the appeal would not stand a reasonable chance of success. [13] THEREFORE, the motion is DISMISSED, without costs.

JACQUES R. FOURNIER, J.A.