2014 QCCA 1127, 2014 QCCA 1127
Opinion
Droit de la famille — 141297 2014 QCCA 1127 COUR D'APPEL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL N o : 500-09-024075-137 ( 760-12-022774-123 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING (CORRECTED ON JUNE 2, 2014) DATE: May 29, 2014 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE NICOLE DUVAL HESLER, C. J.Q. FRANCE THIBAULT , J.A. MANON SAVARD, J.A. APPELLANT COUNSEL A. A. Personally RESPONDENT COUNSEL D. K. Mtre Brigitte Brunet BRIGITTE BRUNET, AVOCATS
In appeal from a judgment rendered on november 6, 2013 by the Honourable Mr. Justice Pierre Béliveau of the Superior Court, district of Beauharnois. Motion from the Appellant for permission to present new evidence NATURE OF APPEAL : Accessory measures Clerk : Linda Côté Courtroom : Pierre-Basile-Mignault Hearing 11h30 : Commencement of the hearing. 11h31 : The Court has taken note of the motion from the Appellant for permission to present new evidence and it does not satisfy the legal requirements. For these reasons, the motion is denied. 11h32 : Submissions by Mr. A.
A.. 1 2 h37 : Recess of the hearing. 14h15 : Resumption of the hearing. 14h15 : Submissions continued by Mr. A.. 14h32 : Recess. 14h40 : Resumption. 14h41 : Submissions by Mtre Brigitte Brunet. 14h49 : UNANIMOUS JUDGMENT RENDERED – see page 3. 14h50 : End of the hearing. Linda Côté Clerk BY THE COURT
JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Considering that awards for alimentary support are discretionary in nature and that Appellant fails to show that the first instance judge would have exercised his discretion improperly. [ 2 ] Considering that Appellant is not requesting a change of custody or access rights at present. [ 3 ] Considering that the “baseball arbitration” method used by the judge for the partition of the family patrimony, partnership of acquests, provision for costs and student loan constituted an error in law and is no substitute for a proper analysis of the evidence.
It is the duty of a judge to consider the evidence and the arguments and decide the issues in accordance with appropriate legal rules. [ 4 ] Considering that nevertheless, Appellant did not submit evidence demonstrating the existence of a reviewable error in the conclusions arrived at by the judge. THEREFORE, THE COURT : [ 5 ] DISMISSES the appeal. [ 6 ] The whole without costs, seeing the nature of the file. NICOLE DUVAL HESLER, C.J.Q. FRANCE THIBAULT, J.A. MANON SAVARD, J.A.
Loading document…