2018 QCCA 1305, 2018 QCCA 1305

Ghaderi c. Trinh 2018 QCCA 1305 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-027430-180 (500-17-083296-148) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: August 8, 2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE nicole duval hesler , C.J.Q. MARIE ST-PIERRE , J.A. ROBERT M. MAINVILLE , J.A. APPELLANT COUNSEL AMIR GHADERI Mtre GORDON M. SELIG RESPONDENT COUNSEL NATHALIE TRINH Mtre DAVID EMMANUEL ROBERGE (McCarthy Tétrault S.E.N.C.R.L., s.r.l.) On appeal from a judgment rendered on March 9, 2018 by the Honourable Madam Justice Élise Poisson of the Superior Court, District of Montreal

DESCRIPTION : Application to dismiss an appeal (Article 365 C.C.P .) Clerk: Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 16:19 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. 16:20 Submissions by Mtre Selig. 16:56 Recess. 17:09 Resumption of the hearing. 17:09 By the Court: judgment – see page 3. 17:13 Conclusion of the hearing.

Robert Osadchuck Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Shortly before the case instituted by the Appellant against a medical specialist was to be heard, the attorneys for Appellant withdrew from the record, alleging that they could not obtain instructions from him. [ 2 ] Shortly thereafter, the expert who had been retained by Appellant notified those attorneys that he was withdrawing from the file. [ 3 ] Justice Collier, of the Superior Court, granted the Motion to cease representing Appellant presented by Appellant’s attorneys on October 30, 2017. [ 4 ] The Appellant did not attend that hearing. [ 5 ] The Appellant did not respond to the Notice to appoint a new attorney. [ 6 ] The Appellant did not indicate that he intended to represent himself. [ 7 ] It is also worth noting that Mrs.

Sanaz Ghaderi, who initially was a co-plaintiff in the claim, also withdrew from the case. [ 8 ] The Appellant was served with a Motion to Dismiss his case presentable on November 17. The Appellant did not attend that hearing either, though duly convened, and that Motion was granted by Mr. Justice Pinsonneault. [ 9 ] The Appellant then asked for the judgment of Mr. Justice Pinsonneault to be revoked. [ 10 ] Madam Justice Poisson, whose judgment is being appealed before the Court, denied the Motion in revocation, which invoked three grounds for revocation: 1.

The Appellant’s difficulties in finding a new attorney, 2. the existence of another case of a criminal nature for which he was also seeking legal representation and 3. his health condition, which would have hampered him in such efforts. [ 11 ] No medical evidence was tendered concerning this third ground.

[ 12 ] Madam Justice Poisson found that the Appellant had not been taken by surprise and that the judgment of Mr. Justice Pinsonneault did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute. She then considered the facts of the case and concluded as findings of fact that the Appellant had not been diligent in pursuing his case and had failed to demonstrate that his medical condition had been a factor in such lack of diligence. Neither had the existence of another file pending, as referred to above.

She also noted that the fact that he had rapidly secured the services of an attorney for his Motion in revocation of judgment demonstrated that it was doubtful that difficulties in recruiting an attorney were a sufficient cause of his failure to act in a timely manner before the judgment of Mr. Justice Pinsonneault. [ 13 ] We are of the unanimous view that Appellant’s appeal has no reasonable chance of success. FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 14 ] GRANTS Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Appeal, with legal costs. [ 15 ] DISMISSES the Appeal, with legal costs. nicole duval hesler, C. J.Q.

MARIE ST-PIERRE, J.A. ROBERT M. MAINVILLE, J.A.