J.P. c. Kleinman 2012 QCCA 1507 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-022863-120 ( 500-17-070168-128 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: August 22, 2012 THE HONOURABLE YVES-MARIE MORISSETTE, J.A. PETITIONER ATTORNEY J. P. Mtre Jordan W. Charness CHARNESS CHARNESS & CHARNESS Mtre Francis Santoianni ZAMBITO PAOLINO SANTOIANNI RESPONDENTS ATTORNEY ROBERT KLEINMAN MARTIN (MOISHE) GLUSTEIN MAYER TREITEL Mtre Michael Schacter KAUFMAN LARAMÉE MIS EN CAUSE ATTORNEY

FRIENDSHIP CIRCLE OF QUEBEC MADA COMMUNITY CENTRE INC. L. W. JU. L. B. M. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT RENDERED ON JUNE 22, 2012, BY THE HON. LOUIS LACOURSIERE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Clerk: Annick Nguyen Court Room: RC.18 HEARING 15:36 Commencement of the hearing. Submission by Mtre Charness. 15:42 Submission by Mtre Schacter. 15:54 Reply by Mtre Charness. 15:56 Suspension. 16:19 Resumption of the hearing. BY THE JUDGE. Judgment – See page 3.

Annick Nguyen Clerk JUDGMENT [ 1 ] On one reading of the judgment which was rendered in this case on June 22, 2012, the judge curtailed the petitioner's ability to present expert evidence at trial and did so in a manner which might have amounted to maintaining an objection to evidence. [ 2 ] On another reading of the judgment, however, this was merely a case management decision, which characterized correctly if

somewhat narrowly the evidence at issue, namely written statements by lay witnesses as opposed to experts’ reports. [ 3 ] Any trial judge properly apprised of the situation should allow these witnesses, if they testify, to account with appropriate leeway the facts they observed and evaluated in the performance of their professional duties as health and care personnel. [ 4 ] I am inclined to adopt the second view of the case and to conclude that arguments offered at the appropriate time to the trial judge will do more to assist the petitioner than a hypothetical judgment of this Court which, at any rate, cannot transform into expert evidences what is technically but unquestionably lay evidence. [ 5 ] FOR THESE REASONS , the motion is DISMISSED, with costs.