2020 QCCA 888, 2020 QCCA 888

Droit de la famille — 20910 2020 QCCA 888 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-028794-204 ( 500-12-336513-175 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: July 9, 2020 THE HONOURABLE MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. APPLICANT COUNSEL A. J. Mtre Violaine Belzile ( Violaine Belzile, Avocates S.A . ) By videoconference RESPONDENT COUNSEL Y. T.

Mtre David Kellerman ( Kellerman Hoss-Desmarais Avocats ) By videoconference DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment rendered in the course of the proceeding on December 17, 2019 by the Honourable Silvana Conte of the Superior Court , District of Montreal (Art. 30 al. 3 et 31 C.C.P. ). Application for stay of proceedings (Art. 660 C.C.P. ). Clerk at the hearing : Mélanie Camiré Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING 12:57 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. Preliminary comments. 12:58 Submissions by Mtre Belzile. BY THE JUDGE: Judgment – see page 3.

13:16 Conclusion of the hearing.

Mélanie Camiré, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Petitioner seeks leave to appeal the judgment of the Superior Court, District of Montreal (the Honourable Sylvana Conte), rendered orally on December 17, 2019 dismissing the Petitioner’s “motion for supplementary order” (“the motion”). [ 2 ] The conclusions of the judgment read as follows: DISMISSES Defendant’s application for a supplementary order; GRANTS Plaintiff’s application for abusive proceedings; DECLARES Defendant’s application abusive and manifestly unfounded; RADIATES the improper allegations contained in paragraphs 10, 13, 14 and 15 of Defendant’s application; CONDEMNS Defendant to pay Plaintiff 2000$ in punitive damages; THE WHOLE with costs in both applications given the Defendant’s abusive behaviour. [ 3 ] The Petitioner also seeks the suspension of the provisional execution of the judgment which is provided by law pursuant to article 660 (1) C.C.P. [ 4 ] The judgment was rendered in the midst of what appears to be a particularly acrimonious divorce case commenced in 2017 which has not yet proceeded to trial on the merits.

The motion sought communication and medical information regarding the couple’s children and an order restricting travel outside Canada without the Petitioner’s consent. The Respondent has custody and the Petitioner’s access rights are subject to supervision. [ 5 ] The motion was dismissed by the judge because it was not urgent; it alleged nothing objective that could justify the Respondent (the custodial parent) being restricted in her travels with the children; the allegation that medical information was not provided was contradicted by documentary evidence in the file.

The frivolity of the request led to the declaration of abuse and the monetary sanction which the judge could do on her own initiative (Article 51 C.C.P. ). [ 6 ] The Petitioner’s complaint that she was not present at the hearing is unfounded since she was represented by an attorney on a motion which she had presented. [ 7 ] Simply put, the judge exercised her discretion in a judicious manner on questions of fact. There is nothing shown to me that could qualify this case for leave under either of Articles 30 or 31 C.C.P. invoked by the Petitioner.

FOR ALL THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED : [ 8 ] DISMISSES the motion for leave to appeal; [ 9 ] DISMISSES the motion to suspend provisional execution; [ 10 ] THE WHOLE without costs given the nature of the case. MARK SCHRAGER, J.A.