2014 QCCA 2282, 2014 QCCA 2282

Seltzer c. Novek 2014 QCCA 2282 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-024869-141 (500-17-082437-149) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: December 15, 2014 THE HONOURABLE MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. PETITIONER MICHAEL SELTZER In person RESPONDENT ATTORNEY / COUNSEL SWEIBEL NOVEK Mtre chrystal ashby ( Norton Rose Fulbright Canada S.E.N.C.R.L.,s.r.l. ) DESCRIPTION: Motion for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment rendered on November 28, 2014 by the Honourable Justice Richard Nadeau, from the Superior Court, district of Montreal. Clerk: Asma Berrak Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING

9:37 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. Submission by Mr. Seltzer. 9:45 Submission by Mtre Ashby. 9:56 Reply by Mr. Seltzer. 9:57 Suspension. 10:04 Resumption. Judgment-see page 3. 10:06 Conclusion of the hearing.

Clerk BY THE JUDGE JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Petitioner seeks leave to appeal an interlocutory judgment rendered by the Superior Court, on November 28, 2014 (the Honourable Richard Nadeau), dismissing Petitioner’s motion to revise the decision of the Special Clerk which ordered him to file security for costs in the amount of $ 17 686 as a non-resident litigant. [ 2 ] Petitioner contests one ingredient of the security order, namely $ 15 000 meant to defray expert costs because, as Petitioner pleaded, the agreement as to the conduct of the proceedings does not provide for the filing of an expert’s report. [ 3 ]

Article 29 CCP reads as follows:

29. Est également sujet à appel, conformément à l'article 511, le jugement interlocutoire de la Cour supérieure ou celui de la Cour du Québec mais, s'il s'agit de sa compétence dans les matières relatives à la jeunesse, uniquement en matière d'adoption: 1. lorsqu'il décide en

partie du litige; 2. lorsqu'il ordonne que soit faite une chose à laquelle le jugement final ne pourra remédier; ou 3. lorsqu'il a pour effet de retarder inutilement l'instruction du procès. Toutefois, l'interlocutoire rendu au cours de l'instruction n'est pas sujet à appel immédiat et ne peut être mis en question que sur appel du jugement final, à moins qu'il ne rejette une objection à la preuve fondée sur l'article 308 de ce code ou sur l'

article 9 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne (chapitre C-12 ) ou à moins qu'il ne maintienne une objection à la preuve. Est interlocutoire le jugement rendu en cours d'instance avant le jugement final. 29. An appeal also lies, in accordance with

article 511, from an interlocutory judgment of the Superior Court or the Court of Québec but, as regards youth matters, only in a matter of adoption: (1) when it in part decides the issues; (2) when it orders the doing of anything which cannot be remedied by the final judgment; or (3) when it unnecessarily delays the trial of the suit. However, an interlocutory judgment rendered during the trial cannot be appealed immediately and it cannot be put in question except on appeal from the final judgment, unless it disallows an objection to evidence based upon

article 308 of this Code or on

section 9 of the Charter of human rights and freedoms (chapter C-12 ), or unless it allows an objection to evidence. Any judgment is interlocutory which is rendered during the suit before the final judgment. [ 4 ] Assuming that the judgment of the Superior Court falls within one of the criteria of

article 29 CCP , the law provides that I must be convinced that the interest of justice requires that leave be granted. [ 5 ] In my opinion, the interest of justice does not require that leave be granted, the whole as provided by

Article 511 CCP . Petitioner’s arguments were given due consideration by the Special Clerk in a reasoned judgment prior to exercising his discretion to order the amount of the security for costs. The proceedings instituted by Appellant would appear to call for an expert opinion to be filed by Defendants as the Special Clerk decided. The omission of a mention of same in the

Schedule of the conduct of proceedings is not in itself fatal. Concerning Petitioner’s means, there is no proof that would have me consider such an argument. FOR ALL OF THE FOREGOING REASONS: [ 6 ] Plaintiff’s motion for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment is dismissed, with costs. mark schrager, J.A.