2021 QCCA 1633, 2021 QCCA 1633

Succession de Becallel 2021 QCCA 1633 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-029695-210 ( 500-17-110700-195 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: October 29, 2021 THE HONOURABLE PETER KALICHMAN, J.A. APPELLANT COUNSEL Estelle (Ester) Cale, personally and in the capacity of liquidator of the Estate of Leon Lajb Cale Becallel Mtre Louis Samuel ( De Granpré Chait ) Absent RESPONDENTS COUNSEL glenda weiss, personally and in the capacity of liquidator of the Estate of Leon Lajb Cale Becallel Mtre Michael Hollander ( Oiknine & Associé

s) Absent BRIAN CALE, personally and in the capacity of liquidator of the Estate of Leon Lajb Cale Becallel Mtre LAZAR SARNA Absent DESCRIPTION: Application for appeal management (Art. 367 C.C.P. and art. 35 Civil Practice Regulation (Court of appeal) ) . Clerk at the hearing : Mélanie Camiré Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING

Continuation of the hearing held on October 28, 2021. The parties were excused from appearing in Court. BY THE JUDGE: Judgement – see page 3. Mélanie Camiré, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The appellant appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court, district of Montreal (the Honorable Marc St-Pierre), granting a motion for homologation in the context of an estate dispute. [1] The respondent asks that I order the parties to proceed by way of 10 page briefs of argument as opposed to factums and that I set the trial date immediately.

Her lawyer contends that the issues raised in appeal are relatively simple. [ 2 ] The appellant does not agree. Her lawyer argues that while the judgment being appealed is not long, the appeal itself raises unusual and complex questions in regards to a will that is 58 pages long.

The appellant believes she will need all 30 pages that she is entitled to and the full 3 month period, the expiry of which is fast-approaching, in which to complete it. [ 3 ] The respondent has not convinced me that it would be appropriate to limit the parties to 10 page briefs or that it would be beneficial to the Court to proceed in this manner. [ 4 ] As far as the request to fix a date is concerned, the respondent is in effect, asking that I order that the appeal be heard by preference. Such an application is presented to the Chief Justice in accordance with

article 73 of the Civil Practice Regulation (Court of Appeal). On this point, the appellant indicates that should such an application be presented once the file is ready to be heard, she would not oppose it. FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 5 ] DISMISSES the application for appeal management with judicial costs. PETER KALICHMAN, J.A.