2022 QCCA 1372, 2022 QCCA 1372

Droit de la famille — 221716 2022 QCCA 1372 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-030025-225 ( 500-12-342965-195 ) MINUTES OF HEARING WARNING : Disclosure and circulation prohibited: The Code of Civil Procedure (“ C.C.P .”) provides that, except as authorized by the court, no person shall disclose or circulate any information that would allow a party or a child whose interests are at stake in a proceeding in a family matter to be identified (arts. 15 and 16 C.C.P .). DATE: October 7, 2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE JACQUES J. LEVESQUE, J.A. GENEVIÈVE COTNAM, J.A.

CHRISTINE BAUDOUIN, J.A. APPELLANT COUNSEL S. K. Mtre FAREED HALABI (absent) RESPONDENT COUNSEL B. Z. Mtre ROXANE CHARPENTIER ( Avocats Juripop ) By videoconference On appeal from a judgment rendered on March 24, 2022 by the Honourable Marie-Claude Armstrong of the Superior Court , District of Montreal . DESCRIPTION: Application to dismiss an appeal (Article 365 C.C.P .). Clerk at the hearing : Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING

8:48 Continuation of the hearing held on October 3, 2022. The parties were excused from appearing in Court. BY THE COURT : Judgment – see page 3.

Robert Osadchuck, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT WARNING : Disclosure and circulation prohibited: The Code of Civil Procedure (“ C.C.P .”) provides that, except as authorized by the court, no person shall disclose or circulate any information that would allow a party or a child whose interests are at stake in a proceeding in a family matter to be identified (arts. 15 and 16 C.C.P .). [ 1 ] Respondent presents a motion to dismiss Appellant’s appeal of a Superior Court judgment which pronounced the parties’ divorce on the ground of mental and physical cruelty and decided on a number of accessory measures including parenting time, child and spousal support as well as the partition of assets. [ 2 ] The judgment, which includes 309 paragraphs of reasons, provides a detailed account of the parties’ tumultuous relationship and the hold that Appellant had over Respondent and their children during the marriage.

In establishing the parties’ income and the value and origin of assets, the judge made clear findings of credibility which, as a whole, shows she preferred Appellant’s version of events over that of Respondent. [ 3 ] While Appellant’s notice of appeal claims to expound on so-called errors of law and palpable and overriding errors of fact, it reads more as a convoluted litany of grievances about the conduct of the trial, how the divorce was “fabricated” against him and how the judge rendered a decision based on a “figment of [her] imagination” while overlooking certain facts which Appellant submits were favourable to his position. [ 4 ] Whatever may be said about the true characterization of the issues raised in the notice of appeal, it is abundantly clear that Appellant is inviting the Court to re-examine the evidence as a whole and substitute its own opinion for that of the trial judge in the hopes of a different outcome.

In so doing, Appellant not only fails to consider this Court’s function – which is not to retry cases – but also fails to identify any error that would justify disturbing the judge’s conclusions. [ 5 ] At the hearing, Appellant declared that his grounds of appeal would now be limited to errors made in the calculation of child and spousal support as well as the partition of the partnership of acquests, but again failed to identify any such error. [ 6 ] In short, the Court agrees with Respondent that the appeal shows no reasonable chance of success and must therefore be dismissed.

Moreover, despite this being a family matter, Appellant’s conduct justifies that legal costs be borne by Appellant alone, just as they were in first instance. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 7 ] GRANTS Respondent’s Application to Dismiss an Appeal; [ 8 ] DISMISSES the appeal; [ 9 ] THE WHOLE with legal costs against Appellant. JACQUES J. LEVESQUE, J.A.

GENEVIÈVE COTNAM, J.A. CHRISTINE BAUDOUIN, J.A.