2012 QCCA 1474, 2012 QCCA 1474

M.R. c. R.Ra. 2012 QCCA 1474 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-022751-127 ( 500-17-069430-117 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: August 7, 2012 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE JACQUES A. LÉGER, J.A. JACQUES R. FOURNIER, J.A. CLÉMENT GASCON, J.A. APPELLANTS M. R. S. S., in their quality as tutors of X and Y SH. S. K. R. In person Absent Absent Absent RESPONDENT ATTORNEYS R. R., in his quality as liquidator of the Estate of the Late Sl. R. Mtre Yves Dulude Mtre Véronique Belley SPIEGEL SOHMER INC. Respondents in first instance ATTORNEY

MI. R. S3. H., in his quality as Curator to D. R. S4. R. Motion of Respondent R. Ra. to Dismiss the appeal from a judgment rendered on May 2, 2012 by the Honourable Justice André Denis of the Superior Court, District of Montreal. Clerk: Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 12 h 34 Commencement of the hearing. 12 h 34 Madam M.

R. is present and is asking for a postponement of the hearing of the motion to dismiss the appeal. 12 h 34 Representations by Madam R.. 12 h 46 Representations by Mtre Dulude. 12 h 51 Representations by Madam R.. 12 h 55 By the Court : the request for postponement is denied. 12 h 55 Recess 14 h 48 Resumption of the hearing. On the motion to dismiss the appeal: 14 h 48 Submission by Mtre Dulude. 15 h 03 Submission by Madam R.. 15 h 19 Recess. 15 h 26 Resumption of the hearing. 15 h 26 By the Court : judgment – see next page. Robert Osadchuck Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT

[ 1 ] Mr. R. Ra., in his quality as liquidator of the Estate of the Late Sl.

R., presents a Motion to Dismiss the appeal of the Appellants lodged against a judgment of Denis J. of the Superior Court, rendered on May 2, 2012. [ 2 ] By this judgment, Denis J. authorized the Liquidator to sign a deed of sale with respect to the sale of an immoveable property for an amount of 1,270,000.00$. [ 3 ] We agree with the Liquidator that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success, is improper and dilatory in nature, and should be dismissed immediately. [ 4 ] On the one hand, with respect to the arguments raised for and on behalf of K. R., the Appellant, M. R., is in fact pleading for another.

She cannot do that. Only members of the Bar have the authority by law, under

Article 62 C.C.P ., to represent another physical person in front of the courts. [ 5 ] In addition, M. R. and S. S. act here only in their quality as tutors of their minor children. In that capacity,

article 61

f) C.C.P . imposes that they be represented by an attorney. Therefore, M. R. cannot act personally as she is doing today in front of the Court. [ 6 ] In fact, M. R. has no vested interest in the Estate of the Late Sl. R. further to a judgment that declared her unworthy; accordingly, she has no personal interest in this appeal. [ 7 ] On the other hand, the Inscription in Appeal does not disclose any valid legal grounds to contest the sale of the immoveable authorized by Denis J. [ 8 ] Similarly, the argument to the effect that the trial judge erred in not travelling to K.

R.'s home to allow her to testify is without merit. There was no such obligation resting upon the trial judge. In any event, as appears from a reading of the judgment, the points argued with regard to the impact of the sale upon Mrs. R. were considered by the judge and dismissed as unfounded. [ 9 ] The additional argument raised with respect to the lack of proper service is unsupported.

The court record indeed appears to indicate otherwise. [ 10 ] Finally, the argument raised at the appeal level with respect to the disqualification of the law firm acting for the Liquidator is without basis under the circumstances. [ 11 ] To put it simply, the appeal appears to be nothing else but a dilatory tactic in order to prevent the sale from proceeding. In his judgment, the trial judge emphasized that it is now time that the settlement of the Estate of the deceased, who died in June 2003, be finalized at once. He even ordered provisional execution notwithstanding appeal because of that.

As a matter of fact, Counsel for the Liquidator advises us at hearing that the sale in question took place on August 2, 2012. [ 12 ] In our view, in this context, the immediate dismissal of the appeal is properly justified. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 13 ] GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss the Appeal, with costs; [ 14 ] DISMISSES the appeal filed by the Appellants, with costs. JACQUES A. LÉGER, J.A. JACQUES R. FOURNIER, J.A. CLÉMENT GASCON, J.A.