2013 QCCA 188, 2013 QCCA 188

Droit de la famille — 13211 2013 QCCA 188 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-023298-136 ( 700-12-044235-125 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: February 4, 2013 THE HONOURABLE YVES-MARIE MORISSETTE, J.A. PETITIONER ATTORNEY C. V. Me Sheri Spunt KALMAN SAMUELS Q.C. & ASSOCIATES RESPONDENT ATTORNEY D. R. Me Normand Riendeau LALONDE GERAGHTY RIENDEAU LAPIERRE INC . ATTORNEY FOR CHILDREN Me Valentin Molpeceres VALENTIN MOLPECERES

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT RENDERED ON JANUARY 18, 2013 BY THE HONOURABLE CAROLE HALLÉE. Clerk: Elena Captari Court Room: RC.18 HEARING 9h29: Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. 9h29: Submissions by Mtre Spunt. 10h04: Submissions by Mtre Riendeau. 10h29: Intervention by Mtre Spunt. 10h29: Submissions by Mtre Riendeau. 10h51: Reply by Mtre Spunt. 11h07: Submissions by Mtre Molpeceres. 11h08: Suspension of the hearing. 14h00: Resumption of the hearing. See the judgment on page 3. 14h03: End of hearing.

Elena Captari Clerk JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The parties separated in September 2012 after 15 years of what appears to have been what is customarily called a “traditional marriage”. The defendant, who is the respondent before me, stayed at home and took care of the couple’s four children, now aged 6, 9, 10 an 12.

The parties are now in the very early stages of divorce proceedings which were commenced by the petitioner in November 2012. [ 2 ] The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal from an interim order of the Superior Court issued on January 18 th , 2013, and he also asks that provisional execution of this order be suspended pending the outcome of the appeal. The order in question follows two earlier interim or safeguard orders. In its relevant part, it reads as follows: [29] ACCORDE la garde partagée des quatre enfants aux deux parents du vendredi 15 h 30 au vendredi suivant 15 h 30, laquelle

débutera exceptionnellement ce dimanche 20 janvier à 16 h 00 avec la mère; [30] DÉCLARE que les enfants demeureront dans la résidence familiale sis au [...], à Ville A et que les deux parents se partageront la résidence en alternance; [44] La présente ordonnance est pour valoir jusqu’au 4 avril 2013 , non pas dans le but de modifier la présente ordonnance de sauvegarde, à moins d’un changement significatif important, mais uniquement pour vérifier l’état de la situation quant à la nécessité de l’expertise ou non, puisqu’il est de l’avis du Tribunal que cette garde partagée puisse être maintenue jusqu’à la fin de la présente année à moins qu’une date d’audition sur les mesures provisoires soit fixée avant; [ 3 ] The hearing in the Superior Court lasted a whole day (Thursday, January 17 th , in the afternoon, and Friday, January 18 th , all morning); no witnesses were heard but the hearing, as is common practice in such matters, was conducted on the basis of lengthy affidavits from each party. [ 4 ] From the record in its current state, there is every indication that the purpose of this order is to attenuate the effect that the separation is having on the children and, indeed, the order, on its face, has all the appearances of a sensible compromise in the best interest of the children. [ 5 ] Built into the order is the further precaution that a reconsideration of the situation in the family will take place on April 4 th , that is, exactly nine weeks from today. [ 6 ] The petitioner argues that the judge of first instance committed several errors of fact itemized in his motion for leave to appeal.

The respondent, predictably, counters with a vigorous contestation of this argument.

Since an appeal on such a ground could succeed only if a panel of the Court were presented with at least one palpable and overriding error, since the judge in her reasons appraised, as she had to, the contradictory statements contained in the affidavits, and since the materials now before me do not point to even the possibility of a palpable and overriding error [1] , leave cannot be granted on this ground for it betrays a misunderstanding of the appellate process. [ 7 ] The petitioner also argues that the order he wishes to challenge is wrong in law: it changes the status quo ante between the parties in a manner detrimental to the children. [ 8 ] I note first that the so-called status quo in this case had been in something of a state of flux since the separation of the parties in September 2012 but that, for a number of preceding years, the status quo favoured the respondent, a stay-at-home mother of four married to a shipmaster whose employment base was in Venezuela. [ 9 ] The case-law on appeals from interim orders of the kind at stake here, and in particular the case-law on motions to suspend the provisional execution of such orders, is as clear as it is stable.

In G.L. v. N.F. [2] , for example, Chief Justice Robert wrote: [4] Il faut rappeler la nouvelle règle qu'en matière de pension ou provision alimentaire et de garde d'enfants, l'exécution provisoire est ordonnée, à moins que le tribunal par décision motivée ne suspende cette exécution (article 547

g) C.p.c.). [5] Les principes régissant la requête en suspension sont bien connus. La suspension étant l'exception, le juge d'appel doit avoir le plus grand respect pour le jugement du premier juge qui a vu et entendu les parties et les témoins. [6] L'appelant doit faire la démonstration que le jugement entrepris présente des faiblesses apparentes dont il est urgent, dans l'intérêt supérieur des enfants, de suspendre les effets.

De plus, il doit convaincre le juge que le poids relatif des inconvénients lui est favorable. [7] Quant à la garde des enfants, l'appelant plaide que l'exécution provisoire devrait être suspendue parce que les enfants vivent une garde partagée depuis juin 2001 et qu'on devrait retourner au statu quo ante . Cet argument n'est pas convaincant puisque l'appelant a maintenant un horaire de travail de soir de 15h00 à 23h00 qui l'empêche d'être avec ses enfants après leur retour de l'école. Par ailleurs, les droits d'accès fréquents modifient peu le temps que l'appelant passe avec ses enfants.

I am not suggesting that there is an analogy to be made between the sort of status quo that was in issue in G.L. v. N.F. and the situation at hand here. But the notion is not an automatism, it must be used with discernment in all cases and the motions judge here had ample and sufficient reasons to favour a partial reinstatement of the status quo known to the respondent and the children for almost the entire duration of the children’s life. [ 10 ] A final point ought to be underscored. The order in issue will be in force until April 4 th .

If leave were granted, and the appeal went forward (even with outlines of argument), it is entirely unlikely that it could be heard before that date. The purpose of an appeal is not, and cannot be, solely to suspend a court order which will have lapsed by the time the appeal is heard. The respondent obtained a judgment which presents no apparent flaw and which is partly favourable to her; she and her children are entitled to the benefit of this judgment at least until April 4 th . [ 11 ] For these reasons, the motion for leave to appeal is dismissed, without costs in view of the nature of the case.

The motion to suspend provisional execution is thus without object.

YVES-MARIE MORISSETTE J.A.