2013 QCCA 528, 2013 QCCA 528

Droit de la famille — 13701 2013 QCCA 528 COUR D'APPEL CANADA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC GREFFE DE MONTRÉAL N o : 500-09-022496-129 (500-04-053719-101) PROCÈS-VERBAL D'AUDIENCE DATE: 21 mars 2013 CORAM: LES HONORABLES FRANÇOIS DOYON, J.C.A. NICHOLAS KASIRER, J.C.A. JEAN BOUCHARD, J.C.A. APPELANTE AVOCATE S... N... Me Maria R. Battaglia Maria R. Battaglia, Avocats INTIMÉS AVOCATE M... V... RÉGIE DES RENTES DU QUÉBEC DIRECTEUR DE L'ÉTAT CIVIL A... B... Me Suzanne Moisan Moisan Perreault Me Sheila York Régie des rentes du Québec ARAV ROBILLARD LANIEL Personnellement

AVOCAT(

S) R... M... Personnellement En appel d'un jugement rendu le 14 février 2012 par l'honorable Ginette Piché de la Cour supérieure, district de Montréal. Demande d'intervention de monsieur R... M..., déposée le 18 mars 2013. Appellant's motion to strike allegations and exhibits from the court record, déposée à l'audition. NATURE DE L'APPEL : Famille Greffière: Marcelle Desmarais Salle: Antonio-Lamer AUDITION 9 h 43 La Cour entend monsieur R... M... sur sa demande d'intervention reçue le 18 mars 2013. 9 h 50 Suspension de la séance. 9 h 54 Reprise de la séance.

PAR LA COUR: Arrêt unanime prononcé par l'honorable François Doyon, J.C.A. sur la demande d'intervention – voir page 4. 9 h 57 Argumentation par Me Maria R. Battaglia.

10 h 00 Me Battaglia dépose à la Cour une requête intitulée: Appellant's motion to strike allegations and exhibits from the court record. La Cour demande à Me Maria R. Battaglia de plaider le dossier, la Cour décidera de la requête de Me Battaglia plus tard. 10 h 00 Argumentation par Me Maria R. Battaglia. 10 h 02 Argumentation par Me Suzanne Moisan. 10 h 10 Argumentation par Me Sheila York. 10 h 20 Remarque par Me Suzanne Moisan. 10 h 21 Réplique par Me Maria R. Battaglia. 10 h 26 Réplique par Me Suzanne Moisan. 10 h 29 Suspension de la séance. 10 h 51 Reprise de la séance.

La Cour interroge Me Battaglia quant au paragraphe 6 de sa requête «Appellant's motion to strike allegations and exhibits from the court record». Me Maria Battaglia retire le paragraphe 6 de sa requête. 10 h 54 Représentation par monsieur R... M... sur la requête de Me Battaglia. PAR LA COUR: 10 h 56 Arrêt unanime prononcé par l'honorable François Doyon, J.C.A. sur la requête de l'appelante: « Appellant's motion to strike allegations and exhibits from the court record» - voir page 4. Arrêt unanime prononcé par l'honorable François Doyon, J.C.A. sur le fond du pourvoi , voir page 4. Fin de la séance.

Marcelle Desmarais Greffière d'audience PAR LA COUR ARRÊT Sur la demande d'intervention de monsieur R... M...: [ 1 ] CONSIDÉRANT la demande présentée par monsieur R...

M... qui demande la permission d'intervenir dans le cadre de cet appel, notamment pour : «Renvoyer la cause pour être réentendue au tribunal de première instance.» [ 2 ] CONSIDÉRANT que la procédure est irrégulièrement formée; [ 3 ] CONSIDÉRANT que monsieur M... pouvait intervenir dès le stade de la Cour supérieure, s'il avait l'intérêt requis, ce qu'il n'a pas fait; [ 4 ] CONSIDÉRANT les enjeux du présent appel, l'intervention n'est pas directement pertinente, d'autant que la demande vise à refaire le procès; [ 5 ] POUR CES MOTIFS , la demande d'intervention est rejetée, sans frais.

On the « Appellant's motion to strike allegations and exhibits from the court record» : [ 6 ] In light of the nature of the allegations and the content of the exhibits, the motion is granted according to its conclusions, without costs.

Sur le pourvoi: [ 7 ] On February 14, 2012, the Superior Court (the Honourable Ginette Piché, presiding) annulled the marriage of S. N. and the late B. M. and ordered that it produce putative effects in Ms. N.'s favour. [ 8 ] Ms. N. has inscribed the judgment in appeal, seeking in particular to revise the trial judge’s decision to exclude the partition of registered pension earnings from those putative effects. Ms. N. also asks this Court to quash the trial judge’s declaration that M. V. is the sole "surviving spouse" of Mr.

M. within the meaning of that term in the Act respecting the Quebec Pension Plan [1] and seeks several other incidental conclusions. [ 9 ] The Régies des rentes (the “Pension Board”) has filed a factum as respondent in which it also asks that the judge’s conclusions regarding the surviving spouse’s pension and the partition of the registered pension earnings be struck as unfounded in law. [ 10 ] The judge's decision to annul the marriage is not at issue on appeal, nor is her conclusion that Ms. N. was in good faith when she married Mr. M..

The dispute turns on the extent of those putative effects and, in particular, the Superior Court's findings in respect of Ms. V.'s rights under the Act respecting the Quebec Pension Plan (the "Act"). *** [ 11 ] Respectfully stated, the trial judge overstepped her jurisdiction in declaring Ms. V. to be Mr. M.' surviving spouse for the purposes of the Act . [ 12 ] While the Superior Court did have the power to order the payment of putative effects of marriage, sections 105 and 139 of the Act provide that the Pension Board both authorizes and pays the surviving spouse's pension.

The decision to authorize payment of the pension may be reviewed by the Pension Board upon application of an interested person (s. 186). This “review decision / décision en révision ” of the Pension Board may be contested before the ATQ, pursuant to

section 188 of the Act. [ 13 ] Recourses before the ATQ are governed in part by the Act respecting administrative justice , [2] which provides in

section 14 that the ATQ exercises its jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other tribunals and adjudicative bodies. The ATQ thus had jurisdiction to decide, to the exclusion of the Superior Court, the issue as to who was Mr. M.’ surviving spouse. [3] [ 14 ] Whether or not the trial judge was correct in her reading of the Act , her conclusion declaring Ms. V. to be the surviving spouse should therefore be struck for want of jurisdiction. *** [ 15 ] With respect for the trial judge, she also erred in excluding the partition of registered pension earnings from the putative effects of the marriage between Ms. N. and the late Mr. M.. [ 16 ] It is true that paragraph 3 of

article 415 C.C.Q. provides that registered pension earnings are excluded from the family patrimony when the marriage is dissolved by death. But that is not the case here. The triggering event for partition of the family patrimony in favour of Ms. N. under

article 416 C.C.Q. is the annulment of the marriage and not the death of Mr. M.. [ 17 ] The reference the judge made to

article 425 C.C.Q. at paragraph. [67] of her reasons cannot justify her decision to exclude the registered pension earnings from the partition of the family patrimony as part of the putative effects of marriage.

Article 425 C.C.Q. refers to the technical operation of calculating the earnings registered in the name of each spouse effected by the Pension Board that follows the partition of the family patrimony.

Article 425 does not, however, authorize a judge to exclude earnings from partition. FOR THESE REASONS , the Court: [ 18 ] ALLOWS the appeal, in part; [ 19 ] STRIKES paragraph [73] of the judgment; [ 20 ] STRIKES paragraph [74] of the judgment and replaces it with the following: [74] DÉCLARE que S... N... était de bonne foi lors de son mariage le 20 juin 2002 avec B... M... et comme tel, a droit aux effets putatifs du mariage; [ 21 ] STRIKES paragraph [75] of the judgment and replaces it with the following: [75] DÉCLARE que S...

N... a droit au partage du patrimoine familial le tout, en vertu des règles du Code civil du Québec concernant les effets putatifs du mariage; [ 22 ] STRIKES paragraph [81] of the judgment and replaces it with the following: [81] AUTORISE le Directeur de l’État civil à rectifier l’acte de décès de M. B... M... de façon à inscrire que le mariage célébré entre lui et Mme S... N... le 20 juin 2002 est déclaré nul. [ 23 ] CONFIRMS the other conclusions of the judgment; [ 24 ] Without costs given the nature of the appeal.

FRANÇOIS DOYON, J.C.A. NICHOLAS KASIRER, J.C.A. JEAN BOUCHARD, J.C.A.