2017 QCCA 1014, 2017 QCCA 1014

Di Betta c. Di Betta 2017 QCCA 1014 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-026854-174 (500-17-092990-160) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: June 22, 2017 THE HONOURABLE marie-france bich, J.A. APPLICANT COUNSEL anneliese di betta Mtre jean-pierre sheppard (Robinson Sheppard Shapiro sencrl) RESPONDENT COUNSEL anthony di betta Mtre sébastien dubois (Greenspoon Bellemare s.e.n.c.r.l.) IMPLEADED PARTY VALDINA DI BETTA DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment rendered in the course of a proceeding on May 29, 2017 by the Honourable Gary D.D.

Morrison of the Superior Court, District of Montreal (Article 31 C.C.P. ) Clerk: Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: RC-18

HEARING Continuation of the hearing of June 21, 2017. 9:30 Judgment – see page 3. Robert Osadchuck Clerk BY THE JUDGE JUDGMENT [ 1 ] In a carefully reasoned judgment, the Superior Court concluded that counsel for the applicant should be disqualified from acting in the present file (art. 193 C.C.P. ). The applicant seeks leave to appeal this judgment, pursuant to art. 31 C.C.P. [ 2 ] Considering, in particular, the judgments of the Court in Bohbot (Succession de) v. Bohbot [1] and Dentons Canada, l.l.p. v.

Bazinet [2] , as well as the general rules expounded by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP [3] , R. v. Neil [4] and MacDonald Estate v. Martin [5] , I am respectfully of the view that the appeal is not likely to succeed in light of the factual determinations of the judge [6] and the appellate standard of review applicable to judgments rendered in such matters.

In addition, although one might not entirely share the judge’s reasons on the question of renunciation, his conclusion that the respondent did act in due time when he sought the disqualification of counsel for the applicant some six months after the latter entered the file appears to be reasonable, considering the case law.

Consequently, and taking into account the best interests and proper administration of justice (art. 9 and 18 C.C.P. ), leave to appeal shall not be granted. [ 3 ] This will also ensure that the proceedings before the Superior Court progress diligently, which is in the best interest of the parties, including the applicant, considering the nature of the dispute between them. [ 4 ] For the aforementioned reasons , the application for leave to appeal is dismissed , with legal costs. MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A.