2022 QCCA 121, 2022 QCCA 121

Tarasenko Kovalenko c. Vasilevich Manakhov 2022 QCCA 121 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-029751-211 ( 500-17-116003-214) (500-17-115985-213) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: January 28, 2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE JACQUES J. LEVESQUE, J.A. BENOÎT MOORE, J.A. FRÉDÉRIC BACHAND, J.A.

APPELLANT ANNA TARASENKO KOVALENKO PRESENT AND UNREPRESENTED By videoconference RESPONDENT COUNSEL YURY VASILEVICH MANAKHOV Mtre IVAN MICHAEL PANDEV ( Pandev Longpré ) By videoconference On appeal from a judgment rendered on September 28, 2021 by the Honourable Philippe Bélanger of the Superior Court , District of Montreal . DESCRIPTION: Application to dismiss an appeal (Article 365 C.C.P. ). Clerk at the hearing : Anne Dumont Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 9:29 Commencement of the hearing. Continuation of the hearing held on January 24, 2022. The parties were excused from appearing in Court.

BY THE COURT : Judgment – see page 3. Conclusion of the hearing.

Anne Dumont, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The respondent seeks the

summary dismissal of an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, district of Montreal (the Honourable Mr. Justice Philippe Bélanger), [1] which summarily dismissed two actions commenced by the appellant. Relying on

article 365 C.C.P. , the respondent contends that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success. [ 2 ] We agree. [ 3 ] In the first action, the appellant sues for damages exceeding $1.3 million in relation to a seizure before judgment made in an earlier proceeding and which, in her submission, was carried out in an illegal and abusive manner.

However — and as noted by the first- instance judge —, the validity of that seizure was upheld in a judgment of the Superior Court which is now final. [2] Nothing in the appellant’s notice of appeal suggests that she has a reasonable chance of demonstrating that, despite the doctrine of re judicata (article 2848 para. 1 C.C.Q. ), she could somehow relitigate the matter of the seizure’s validity. [ 4 ] In the second action, the appellant sues for defamation, claiming $500,000 in relation to statements allegedly made by the respondent during the proceeding in which the seizure before judgment was carried out.

The first-instance judge found that claim unfounded in law even if the facts alleged are true (article 168 para. 2 C.C.P. ) given the one-year prescription period set out in

article 2929 C.C.Q. , as well as the fact that the appellant’s action was commenced 22 months after the defamatory comments were allegedly made. As she did before the Superior Court, the appellant contends that the prescription period only started running in March 2020, when this Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment in the earlier proceeding. [3] The first-instance judge was right to note that the appellant’s argument has no basis in law.

Moreover, nothing else the notice of appeal suggests that she has a reasonable chance of demonstrating that the prescription period started running within the year that preceded the filing of her originating application. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 5 ] GRANTS the motion to dismiss the appeal, with legal costs; [ 6 ] DISMISSES the appeal, with legal costs. JACQUES J. LEVESQUE, J.A. BENOÎT MOORE, J.A.

FRÉDÉRIC BACHAND, J.A.