2016 QCCA 966, 2016 QCCA 966

Droit de la famille — 161333 2016 QCCA 966 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-026043-166 (500-12-326763-152) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: June 3, 2016 THE HONOURABLE MARIE-JOSÉE HOGUE, J.A. PETITIONER ATTORNEYS S. M. Mtre JAY TURNER Mtre DANIELLE OIKNINE (Oiknine & Associé

s) RESPONDENT ATTORNEYS C. MC. Mtre VICTORIA COHENE Mtre GÉRALD STOTLAND (Lavery, De Billy s.e.n.c.r.l.) DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from two judgments rendered on April 7 th 2016 and April 12 th , 2016, by the Honourable Justice Sylvie De Vito of the Superior Court, District of Montreal Clerk: Shirley Thomas Courtroom: RC-18

HEARING 9:38 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. The Motion is contested. 9:38 Recess. 9:43 Resumption of the hearing. Exchange between the judge and Mtre Turner. 9:43 Representations by Mtre Turner. 10:15 Recess. 10:24 Resumption of the hearing. 10:24 Representations by Mtre Cohene. 11:01 Intervention by Mtre Stotland. 11:02 Reply by Mtre Turner. 11:09 Recess. 11:29 Resumption of the hearing. 11:28 By the judge: Judgment – see page 3. 11:31 Conclusion of the hearing.

SHIRLEY THOMAS Clerk BY THE JUDGE JUDGMENT [ 1 ] I am seized with an application for leave to appeal from two judgments rendered by the Superior Court (honourable Sylvie De Vito) on April 7 th , 2016 and April 12 th , 2016. [ 2 ] The first judgment essentially orders petitioner to pay to respondent an amount of $40,000 per month as an advance on the amounts eventually due to her and is valid until October 7, 2016 or until judgment is rendered on petitioner’s motion for revocation of judgment, whichever is earlier. [ 3 ] The second judgment essentially orders the parties, in the context of petitioner’s motion for revocation, to proceed on the sufficiency of the reasons alleged instead of proceedings on both what is known as the “rescindant” and the “rescisoire” at the same time. [ 4 ] Petitioner seeks leave to appeal from these two judgments since, in his view, there has been a breach of the principle of natural justice, notably the rule Audi alteram partem , as the judgment is preventing him from presenting and completing all of his proof and witnesses so as to control the course of his case. [ 5 ] He sustains that such a breach causes him irreparable prejudice and that, as such, the judgements meet the criteria set in

article 31 of the C.C.P . [ 6 ] I disagree. [ 7 ] The first judgment ordered the petitioner to pay the sum of $40,000 per month pursuant to a Request for a safeguard order concerning spousal support and a provision for costs . [ 8 ] Such an order is limited in time and does not create an irreparable prejudice unless in exceptional circumstances that has not been shown to be present here. [ 9 ] The second judgment is only dealing with how the hearing of the motion in revocation shall proceed.

The decision made by Justice De Vito, in the context of these proceedings, must be qualified of management measures relating to the conduct of the proceedings and as such cannot be appealed (art. 32 C.C.P .). [ 10 ] Furthermore, it is not in the best interest of justice to grant leave to appeal.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 11 ] DISMISSES the motion for leave to appeal from the judgments dated April 7 th , 2016 and April 12 th , 2016. [ 12 ] Without legal costs, given the nature of the file. MARIE-JOSÉE HOGUE , J.A.