2023 QCCA 1199, 2023 QCCA 1199

Michalakopoulos c. Barreau de Montréal 2023 QCCA 1199 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-10-008018-234 ( 500-36-010316-225 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: September 21, 2023 THE HONOURABLE STÉPHANE SANSFAÇON, J.A.

APPLICANT Panagiotis MICHALAKOPOULOS PRESENT AND Unrepresented RESPONDENT COUNSEL Barreau DE MONTREAL Mtre Nathalie G uertin ( Barreau de Montréal ) DESCRIPTION: Motion for leave to appeal from a conviction on a ground that involves questions of law. (Article 291 of the Code of Penal Procedure and sections 21 and ff. of the Rules of the Court of Appeal of Quebec in Criminal Matters ) Clerk at the hearing : Ariane Simard-Trudel Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING 9:30 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of the parties. Preliminary remarks by the judge. 9:31 Submissions by Mr.

Michalakopoulos. 9:37 Discussion between the judge and Mr. Michalakopoulos.

9:47 Mr. Michalakopoulos resumes presenting his submissions. 9:53 Submission by Mtre Guertin. 10:11 Reply by Mr. Michalakopoulos. 10:12 Discussion between the judge and Mr. Michalakopoulos. 10:14 BY THE JUDGE : Judgment – see page 3. Conclusion of the hearing.

Ariane Simard-Trudel, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The applicant seeks leave to appeal [1] from a judgment rendered ex parte by the Superior Court (the Honourable Justice Christian Immer) on April 24, 2023, which dismissed his appeal from a decision of the Court of Québec dismissing his application for revocation of a prior judgment convicting him of having illegally practised the profession of lawyer. [ 2 ] The applicant is a former member of the Barreau du Québec who was charged with one count of illegal practise of law.

He was convicted by default. [ 3 ] The applicant alleges that the Superior Court committed a series of errors, errors purported to be errors of law alone.

They include assertions that the Superior Court judge: (1) failed to recognize that the first judge, that is, the Court of Québec judge, did not provide a fair hearing for the applicant, who was a self-represented litigant; (2) failed to recognize that the first judge was not impartial; (3) refused to recognize that the first judge should have recused herself and transferred the file to another judge because she had rendered a decision against him in another file in which she had concluded that he was not credible; (4) failed to recognize that he was prevented, for serious reasons, from being present in court on April 7, 2022, to present his defence; (5) did not acknowledge that the first judge erred in law in failing to correctly interpret the relevant legislative provisions and jurisprudence submitted by the applicant; and (6) failed to conclude that the first judge erred in proceeding with the “ rescindant ” and the “ rescisoire ” stages at the same time. [ 4 ] As my colleague Cournoyer, J.A. stated in Michalakopoulos c.

Barreau de Montréal : [5] A second appeal should be limited to cases in which the applicant can demonstrate some exceptional circumstance justifying a further appeal 1 . Leave to appeal is to be granted sparingly. Here, none of the issues raises a question of law or principle, new issue, conflicting case law important to the administration of penal justice in Quebec that warrants that leave to appeal be granted. All of the issues raised by the applicant are merely the application of known principles. [2] ___________________ 1. Thiffault c.

Directrice des poursuites criminelles et pénales , 2020 QCCA 816 , paragr. 6 ; Sanimax Lom inc. c. Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal, 2022 QCCA 1029 ; Rivest-Castonguay c. Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CNESST) , 2022 QCCA 957 . [ 5 ] The applicant essentially asks the Court to redo the analysis undertaken by the Superior Court at the first appellate level and come to a different conclusion.

This file raises no legal issue that may have any significance to the administration of justice beyond the particular case at bar, nor does it raise any arguable ground of appeal or exceptional circumstances justifying that a second appeal be put before the Court . Moreover, the applicant has not convinced me that the Superior Court judge committed a reviewable error in finding that the applicant was negligent in relation to his absence at the hearing on April 7, 2022 . FOR THESE REASONS , THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 6 ] DISMISSES the application for leave to appeal, with costs. STÉPHANE SANSFAÇON, J.A.