2012 QCCA 1808, 2012 QCCA 1808

Droit de la famille — 122766 2012 QCCA 1808 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-021822-119 (500-12-245823-996) DATE: October 5, 2012 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE BENOÎT MORIN, J.A. PIERRE J. DALPHOND, J.A. JULIE DUTIL, J.A. P. N. APPELLANT – Defendant v. S. M. RESPONDENT - Plaintiff JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The appellant seeks a reversal of a judgment of the Superior Court ( Droit de la famille – 111955 , 2011 QCCS 3386 ) that ordered him to pay to the respondent $173,419.61 for legal costs incurred by her since March 2004.

In addition, the Superior Court awarded to the respondent $50,000 in moral damages and $35,000 in punitive damages. CONTEXT [ 2 ] The parties were married for about 3 years. Since their separation in 1999, they have been entangled in numerous proceedings. [ 3 ] Most of the appellant’s proceedings since the divorce judgment of March 16, 2004 were dismissed. Moreover, the appellant was declared a vexatious litigant. JUDGMENT UNDER REVIEW [ 4 ] The trial judge concluded that the appellant has abused the legal process and should be ordered to reimburse the respondent’s legal fees and to pay various damages.

ANALYSIS [ 5 ] The appellant, who is not assisted by an attorney, contends that the trial judge committed numerous errors of fact and law. [ 6 ] He argues that the judge erred in applying the provisions of art. 54.1 C.p.c . and seq. to award damages for a period previous to the coming into effect of the said provision on July 1, 2009. [ 7 ] This legal argument has no merit. The power of the Court to order damages for abuse of process is not new. The provision added in 2009 merely codifies and expends on case law.

The fact remains that an abuse of process calls for damages such as fees and legal costs associated with the abuse. [ 8 ] His other arguments relate to the assessment of the evidence. The appellant does not show a significant palpable and overriding error in this regard. [ 9 ] Finally, it should be pointed out that despite the fact that provisional execution was ordered by the Superior Court and that an appellant’s motion to suspend was dismissed ( Droit de la famille –113005 , 2011 QCCA 1774 ), the appellant has not complied, even partly, with the judgment of the Superior Court.

For these reasons, the Court: [ 10 ] DISMISSES the appeal with costs. BENOÎT MORIN, J.A. PIERRE J. DALPHOND, J.A. JULIE DUTIL, J.A. Mr. P. N. In person Mtre Inès Le Roy Duguay, Le Roy For the Respondent Date of hearing: October 3, 2012