2014 QCCA 1588, 2014 QCCA 1588

Perez c. Ranglin 2014 QCCA 1588 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-024583-148 ( 500-22-201137-133 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: August 27, 2014 THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE , J.A. PETITIONER ATTORNEY MONIQUE PEREZ Mtre bruce taub ( Exellence Partner Canada Inc .) RESPONDENT ATTORNEY DELORES RANGLIN Mtre Rose bossou ( Rose Bossou, Avocate ) DESCRIPTION: Motion by defendant for permission to appeal from a judgment rendered on June 19 th 2014 by Madam Justice Suzanne Vadboncoeur of the Court of Quebec, district of Montral. (Art. 26 & 494 C.P.C.) Clerk: Asma Berrak Courtroom: RC.18

HEARING 12:21 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. Discussion between the Judge and Mtre Taub.12:22 Submission by Mtre Bossou about the motion to postpone the hearing.12:23 Between the judge and the parties.12:24 Suspension of hearing.14:00 Resumption of hearing. Comments by the Judge.14:04 Submission by Mtre Taub.14:16 Submission by Mtre Bossou.14:21 Reply by Mtre Taub.14:22 Judgment will be rendered this afternoon. Attorneys' presence is not required. Conclusion of the hearing.

Clerk BY THE JUDGE JUDGMENT [1] The Petitioner Monique Perez is seeking leave to appeal of a judgement rendered on June 19th, 2014 by Madam Justice SuzanneVadboncoeur of the Court of Québec, district of Montreal. [2] Said judgment dismissed a Motion in revocation of a judgment rendered by default on December 19th, 2013 which had ordered thetermination of a commercial lease, the vacation of the leased premises within 48 hours of the judgment and had condemned thePetitioner jointly and severally together with 9200-2599 Québec inc. to pay $34,600 in unpaid rent and repairs, plus an additional sum$1,000 for trouble and inconvenience. [3] The Petitioner alleges that the judge erred in her appreciation of the facts and documentary proof as they related to her negligenceand the circumstances of her late filing of the Motion in revocation, that she failed to apply the rules of natural justice and erred in law bystating that the 15 day delay stipulated under

article 484 C.C.P. is mandatory. [4] To obtain permission to appeal the Petitioner must demonstrate that she satisfies the requirements of

article 26 and 494 C.C.P. [5] At this stage, it is not sufficient to allege an error in the court below to secure leave to appeal. In this regard, I refer to thecomments of my colleague Doyon J. in Crédit Ford du Canada ltée c. Industrielle Alliance Pacifique[1]: [5] Il faut toutefois rappeler que le critère pour accorder la permission, ici, n'est pas celui de l'existence d'une erreur commise par lejuge de première instance. Comme le souligne la juge Rayle dans Maison Sami T.A. Fruits inc.c.

Balcorp Ltd, SOQUIJ AZ-03019698(C.A.) : Considérant que même si le juge avait fait une erreur de droit dans son application des principes applicables comme le prétend lerequérant, cela en soi ne suffirait pas pour constituer une question d'intérêt général dont la Cour d'appel devrait être saisie. […] [6] Encore faut-il que la question soumise en soit une d'intérêt général que la Cour devrait trancher : Caisse populaire de Dégelis c.Nadeau, SOQUIJ AZ-00011512 (C.A.), et qu'elle soulève une question de principe ou implique un débat de droit relativement auquel ilexisterait une jurisprudence contradictoire : Syndicat des copropriétaires des Pignons de La Mairie c.

Lavoie, SOQUIJ AZ-04019211(C.A.). Voir également Fafard c. Commission de la construction du Québec, (QC CA), REJB 1998-07023 (C.A.),Les industries Fournier inc. c. Commission de la construction du Québec, (QC CA), REJB 1998-07024 (C.A.).

[ 6 ] In this case, not only has the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a potential error on the part of the trial judge in its

interpretation of the rules and principles of revocation and in applying these principles to the factual circumstances alleged in support of the Motion but, more importantly, the Petitioner has not raised an appropriate question under

article 26 C.C.P. to justify being granted leave to appeal. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS , the undersigned: [ 7 ] DISMISSES the motion for leave to appeal, with costs. geneviève marcotte , J.A.