2012 QCCA 81, 2012 QCCA 81

Droit de la famille — 1273 2012 QCCA 81 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-022023-113 ( 500-12-284817-065 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: January 20, 2012 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS PELLETIER, J.A. ALLAN R. HILTON, J.A. RICHARD WAGNER, J.A. PETITIONER Y. Q. In person RESPONDENT X. H. In person

"APPLY FOR REHABILITATION OF THE APPEAL" Clerk: Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING January 16, 2012 15 h 50 Beginning of the hearing. 15 h 50 Submission by Mr. Q.. 15 h 52 Submission by Mrs. H.. 15 h 54 Reply by Mr. Q.. 16 h 00 Recess. 16 h 10 Resumption of the hearing. 16 h 10 By the Court: the motion is taken under advisement. January 20, 2012 By the Court: judgment – see next page.

Robert Osadchuck Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The petitioner, who is acting on his own behalf, seeks leave to restore an appeal that was declared abandoned on November 28, 2011 because of his failure to comply with the terms of a letter dated September 27, 2011. It required him to file his written argument, exhibits and authorities by November 10, 2011 in contemplation of an appeal that was fixed for hearing on February 2, 2012. [ 2 ] The reason the petitioner invokes is that he did not fully understand the requirements of the letter because his grasp of the English language is imperfect.

He says he thought that because the date of hearing was fixed as aforesaid, he had nothing further to do to

perfect the appeal, other than attend the hearing. [ 3 ] This

interpretation of the letter is entirely inaccurate, although for someone who does not fully understand English and has no familiarity with legal process, it is plausible that it might be problematic.

The petitioner's motion is drafted in a very elementary English, and he writes: "The applicant English is no good enough". [ 4 ] Having heard the petitioner plead his motion in English, it is clear he has difficulty in expressing himself clearly, although he does so well for someone who immigrated to Canada from China in the relatively recent past. [ 5 ] The Court therefore considers that it would be appropriate to reinstate his appeal.

It would also be appropriate for the petitioner to consult a lawyer in order to ensure that he complies on a timely basis with the Court's requirements for the materials he will need to file in order to pursue his appeal. These materials will necessarily include the requisite number of copies in properly bound form of the proceedings before the Superior Court judge, an official transcript of the hearing in the Superior Court, as well as any relevant exhibits that were produced at the trial by either party.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 6 ] GRANTS the petitioner's motion, without costs; [ 7 ] ANNULS the certificate of desertion dated November 28, 2011; [ 8 ] REINSTATES the petitioner's appeal. FRANÇOIS PELLETIER, J.A. ALLAN R. HILTON, J.A. RICHARD WAGNER, J.A.