2022 QCCA 1403, 2022 QCCA 1403

O'Connor c. Giancristofaro 2022 QCCA 1403 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-029576-212 (500-11-056049-196) DATE: October 7, 2022 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE STÉPHANE SANSFAÇON, J.A. DANIEL F. O’CONNOR APPELLANT – Plaintiff v. EZIO GIANCRISTOFARO BRANISLAVA MALOBABIC RESPONDENTS – Defendants and PUBLICATION OFFICER FOR THE LAND REGISTRY OFFICE OF MONTREAL IMPLEADED PARTY – Impleaded party JUDGMENT [1] The appellant, Daniel F. O’Connor, appeals from a judgment rendered by the Superior Court (the Honourable Mr. JusticeThomas M.

Davis), dismissing his Paulian action against the respondents, Ezio Giancristofaro and Branislava Malobabic. The hearing ofthe appeal is set for November 9, 2022. [2] Upon learning of the identity of the panel members set to hear the appeal, the respondents asked that the undersigned recusehimself for the reasons indicated at paras. 45 to 52 of their application, which is essentially that they do not perceive me as fair and impartial following a previous judgment I rendered on January 15, 2020, in a different but somewhat related file.

In that judgment,[1] Irefused to grant them leave to appeal from two judgments rendered by Michel A. Pinsonnault, J.S.C., in which he had dismissed theirapplication for recusation following his appointment by the Chief Justice as the judge in charge of managing and adjudicating thedisputes liable to arise upon the execution of the judgment he had rendered on September 21, 2018. [3] The Supreme Court has established the criteria applicable to such matters: 111.

The manner in which the test for bias should be applied was set out with great clarity by de Grandpré J. in his dissenting reasonsin Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board, (SCC), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369, at p. 394: [T]he apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by reasonable and right-minded persons, applying themselves to the questionand obtaining thereon the required information. . . . [The] test is “what would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically — and having thought the matter through — conclude. . . .” [2] [4] In Guimond c.

Villeneuve,[3] the Court refused to grant an application for recusation of a member of the Court that was basedon a very similar reason: [1] Roch Guimond demande la récusation du juge Nuss au motif que ce dernier a siégé sur une formation qui a rejeté un de sesappels. [2] Il allègue que cet arrêt est une mauvaise décision et, qu'en conséquence, le juge Nuss serait partial. [3] L'impartialité du juge est une règle fondamentale de tout système de justice moderne. Comme l’affirmait la Courdans Paquette c.

Auger [1996] R.R.A. 275 : Le principe qui exige l’impartialité des juges est la pierre angulaire de notre système judiciaire. Il est inscrit dans les chartes et les loisqui protègent les libertés et droits fondamentaux des citoyens. Il fait

partie de nos garanties constitutionnelles. [4] En conséquence, la partialité d’un juge ne peut être alléguée à la légère. Pourtant, c’est le cas en l’espèce. [5] Il s’impose à l’évidence que le motif de récusation de monsieur Guimond est sans fondement. Le fait pour un juge de participer àune décision ne le rend pas inhabile de ce seul fait. (Emphasis added)

[ 5 ] In the present instance, the respondents allege that by not granting their application for leave to appeal from the judgments of Justice Pinsonnault, I endorsed his conclusions or his remarks concerning them. Evidently, they are wrong, as the criteria for granting leave to appeal are distinct and a judgment refusing leave is, therefore, not and endorsement of the reasons of the first instance judge. [ 6 ] In Ruffo (Re ), the Court noted that “la présomption d’impartialité qui accompagne la fonction de juge sert un objectif bien précis, celui de l'intégrité du système judiciaire.

Cette prémisse ne peut pas être remise en question à chaque fois qu’un justiciable est insatisfait d’une décision”. [4] In this instance, the respondents have failed to rebut that presumption. FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 7 ] DISMISSES the application for recusation in file 500-09-29576-212 scheduled to be heard on November 9, 2022, insofar as the undersigned is concerned, without legal costs. STÉPHANE SANSFAÇON, J.A. Daniel F. O’Connor UNREPRESENTED Appellant Ezio Giancristofaro UNREPRESENTED Respondent Branislava Malobabic UNREPRESENTED Respondent Date of hearing: October 6, 2022.