2015 QCCA 500, 2015 QCCA 500

Droit de la famille — 15513 2015 QCCA 500 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-025011-156 (540-04-011773-121) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: March 19, 2015 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NICHOLAS KASIRER, J.C.A. PETITIONER M. S. In person RESPONDENT COUNSEL Z. SO. Mtre JOSÉE DUOIS ( Josée Dubois avocate ) DESCRIPTION: Motion for leave to appeal a judgment rendered January 13, 2015 by the Honourable Mr. Justice Julien Lanctôt, of the Superior Court, district of Laval. Clerk: Asma Berrak Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING

12:08 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of the parties. Comments by the Judge. 12:10 Submission by Mr. S.. 12:16 Intervention by Mtre Dubois. Submission by Mr. S.. 12:20 Submission by Mtre Dubois. 12:28 Reply by Mr. S.. 12:33 Suspension of hearing. 15:37 Resumption of hearing. Judgment-see page 3. 15:38 Conclusion of the hearing. Asma Berrak Clerk BY THE JUDGE JUDGMENT [ 1 ] M.

S. asks for leave to appeal of an interlocutory judgment, rendered on January 13, 2015, by the Superior Court, District of Laval, (the Honourable Julien Lanctôt), quashing certain subpoenas duces tecum he served on Mtre Francine Fournier, the former advocate of the respondent, So. Z., and two other persons, X and Y. [ 2 ] Mr. S. and Ms Z. are in a protracted matrimonial dispute in Superior Court regarding custody of their children and alimentary support. Ms. Z. is currently represented by Mtre Josée Dubois.

The petitioner, who is not a lawyer, represents himself. [ 3 ] The petitioner served various subpoenas on persons connected to the respondent, including Mtre Fournier. [ 4 ] In oral reasons recorded on the minutes of the hearing in which various case management judgments were rendered, the judge quashed the subpoena served on Mtre Fournier and ordered the petitioner not to serve any further subpoenas on the respondent’s lawyer.

He quashed the subpoenas served on X and Y because, he stated, they were “excessifs”. [ 5 ] The petitioner asks for leave to appeal this judgment, arguing that the judge’s decision was illegal and violated his basic right to subpoena persons he deems necessary to advance his case. *** [ 6 ] Leave is governed by articles 29 and 511 C.C.P. [ 7 ] The judgment quashing the subpoenas orders that something be done that cannot be remedied by final judgment.

That said, I am of the view, for the reasons that follow, that the pursuit of justice does not require that leave be granted. [ 8 ] The subpoena duces tecum served on Mtre Fournier calls on her to attend the Courthouse in Laval with “your complete file, documents, exchange of letters, payments received, cancelled checks, proof of payments […] that you received your fees, together with details of all your out of pocket expenses and other details regarding your bill to your previous client, Z.

So.”. [ 9 ] It became clear at the hearing that the petitioner wants this information, at least in part, in order to respond properly to a motion for provision for costs. [ 10 ] Counsel for the respondent recognized that the petitioner is entitled to the portion of Mtre Fournier’s legal bill that was not forwarded to the petitioner in the file that is before the Superior Court.

She undertook to forward the missing portion of this document to him, but objected to the balance of the materials being disclosed by reason of the professional secret that protects the respondent in her relationship with her former lawyer. [ 11 ] The information sought by the applicant from the lawyer of his former spouse is, unless shown otherwise, confidential by reason of the professional secret to which Mtre Fournier is bound. In quashing the subpoena, the judge implicitly recognized that this remains the case even if Mtre Fournier is no longer representing the respondent.

No argument was raised suggesting the judge made an identifiably reviewable error here. An appeal of the interlocutory judgment on this point would have no reasonable prospect of success.

[ 12 ] As to the finding by the judge that the other subpoenas were excessive, the petitioner has failed to show that the judge erred or misused his discretion in coming to this conclusion. Here again, an appeal would have no reasonable chance of succeeding and, accordingly, the motion for leave should be dismissed.

FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED REASONS , the undersigned: [ 13 ] ACKNOWLEDGES the undertaking made by counsel for the respondent to forward to the petitioner those copies of Mtre Fournier’s invoices for legal services that were omitted from the file in the Superior Court with due dispatch; [ 14 ] DISMISSES the motion for leave to appeal, without costs by reasons of the nature of the dispute. NICHOLAS KASIRER,J.C.A.