2021 QCCA 1764, 2021 QCCA 1764

Succession de Dow 2021 QCCA 1764 COUR D'APPEL CANADA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC GREFFE DE QUÉBEC N o : 200-09-010142-195 (105-14-000743-185) PROCÈS-VERBAL D'AUDIENCE DATE : 25 novembre 2021 FORMATION : LES HONORABLES MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.C.A. SIMON RUEL, J.C.A. FRÉDÉRIC BACHAND, J.C.A. PARTIES APPELANTES AVOCAT CODY TRAVIS DOW JASON DOW Me JULES GRENIER (Grenier, Grenier)

PARTIE INTIMÉE AVOCATE DENA MAIN Me ISABELLE GAGNON (Gagnon Claveau avocats) En appel d'un jugement rendu le 20 novembre 2019 par l'honorable Simon Hébert de la Cour supérieure, district de Bonaventure.

NATURE DE L'APPEL : Libéralités (testament) (formes de testament) (testament devant témoins) Greffière-audiencière : Ariane Gilbert Salle : 4.33 - AUDITION 10 h 36 Appel du dossier et identification des parties; Me Gagnon affirme que la mention : «personnellement et en sa qualité de tutrice» n’est plus d’actualité puisque madame Keshia Dow est maintenant âgée de plus de 18 ans; La Cour s’adresse aux parties et affirme avoir pris connaissance du dossier; 10 h 38 Observations de Me Grenier; 10 h 58 Suspension; 11 h 16 Reprise; Observations de Me Gagnon; 11 h 35 Réplique de Me Grenier; 11 h 37 Suspension; 11 h 48 Reprise; La Cour s’adresse aux parties; 11 h 49 Arrêt, les motifs seront consignés au procès-verbal; Fin de l’audition.

Ariane Gilbert, greffière-audiencière JUDGMENT [ 1 ] This is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, District of Bonaventure (the Honourable Mr. Justice Simon Hébert), [1] granting the respondent’s application to probate a will purportedly made in the presence of witnesses by the deceased, William Anthony Dow, and dated August 19, 2013.

The judge ruled in the respondent’s favour after having dismissed the appellants’ contention that the signature found on the will had been forged. [ 2 ] The appellants are essentially asking the Court to retry the case and reassess the probative force of testimony provided by both lay and expert witnesses at first instance.

As illustrated by numerous precedents from this Court, [2] such a strategy almost always fails because of the standard of appellate review applicable to questions of fact, which the Supreme Court recently addressed as follows: [3] Absent a palpable and overriding error, an appellate court must refrain from interfering with findings of fact and findings of mixed fact and law made by the trial judge: Housen v. Nikolaisen , 2002 SCC 33 , [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, at paras. 10 - 37 ; Benhaim v. St - Germain , 2016 SCC 48 , [2016] 2 S.C.R. 352.

An error is palpable if it is plainly seen and if all the evidence need not be reconsidered in order to identify it, and is overriding if it has affected the result: H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2005 SCC 25 , [2005] 1 S.C.R. 401, at paras. 55 - 56 and 69 - 70 ; Salomon v. Matte - Thompson , 2019 SCC 14 , [2019] 1 S.C.R. 729, at para. 33 . As Morissette J.A. so eloquently put it in J.G. v. Nadeau , 2016 QCCA 167 , at para. 77 , [ translation ] “a palpable and overriding error is in the nature not of a needle in a haystack, but of a

beam in the eye. And it is impossible to confuse these last two notions”: quoted in Benhaim , at para. 39 . The beam in the eye metaphor not only illustrates the obviousness of a reviewable error, but also connotes a misreading of the case whose impact on the decision is plain to see. [Italics in the original text] [ 3 ] This highly deferential standard, which is equally applicable to findings regarding expert evidence, [4] imposes a heavy burden, one the appellants have failed to discharge.

Contrary to their assertion, the judge clearly took into consideration the circumstances in which the will was discovered and he even acknowledged that they were perplexing. Moreover, he found that any concerns arising out of those unusual circumstances were dispelled by the testimonies provided by the respondent and the two individuals who acted as witnesses when Mr. Dow signed the will. The appellants have not shown that the judge’s characterization of those testimonies as compelling was somehow tainted by one or several palpable and overriding errors.

Nor have they shown that the judge’s findings regarding the weight and usefulness of the expert evidence were similarly flawed. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 4 ] DISMISSES the appeal, with legal costs. MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.C.A. SIMON RUEL, J.C.A. FRÉDÉRIC BACHAND, J.C.A.