2011 QCCA 285, 2011 QCCA 285
Opinion
Braun c. 9156-7255 Quebec Inc. 2011 QCCA 285 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-021252-101 ( 500-22-153285-088 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: February 14, 2011 THE HONOURABLE JACQUES DUFRESNE, J.A. PETITIONER ATTORNEY ANDREA BRAUN Personally RESPONDENT ATTORNEY 9156-7255 QUEBEC INC. Mtre Edward J. Druker DRUKER NARVEY GREEN SCHWARTZ
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT RENDERED ON NOVEMBER 15, 2010 BY THE HON. YVES HAMEL OF THE QUEBEC COURT DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Clerk: Annick Nguyen Court Room: RC.18 HEARING 10:43 Commencement of the hearing. Submission by Mrs Braun. 10:46 Submission by Mtre Druker. 10:51 Reply by Mrs Braun. 11:00 Suspension. 11:25 Resumption of the hearing. BY THE JUDGE. Judgment – See page 3.
Annick Nguyen Clerk JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Motion for leave to appeal in this case concerns a judgment of the Court of Quebec which granted Respondent's claim in part and ordered Petitioner to pay the sum of $9,421.98 to the Respondent. [ 2 ] The object of the dispute in appeal is therefore less than $50,000.00, which brings the case under the second paragraph of
article 26 C.C.P. [ 3 ] The Petitioner raises errors that she characterizes as "manifest errors of the appreciation of the documentary evidence and testimonies" and "errors of law". Do the matters raise questions of principle? [ 4 ] Recent judgments from members of this Court sitting as Motion judges point a negative answer. I will then identify two judgments rendered by colleagues of mine, which describe the criteria applicable in such circumstances. [ 5 ] In Société en commandite Les bois de Pierrefonds v. Domaine de parc Cloverdale , 2007 QCCA 292 , J.E. 2007-557, my colleague
Justice Dalphond wrote the following in respect of the second paragraph of
article 26: Cet
article a fait l'objet de plusieurs décisions. Le principe qui s'en dégage est clair : il ne s'agit pas d'une procédure permettant de corriger une erreur de fait ou de droit commise par un juge de la Cour du Québec, mais plutôt d'un moyen pour la Cour d'intervenir lorsque le requérant démontre qu'il s'agit d'une question d'intérêt général qu'elle devrait trancher. [ 6 ] In Crédit Ford du Canada ltée v.
Industrielle Alliance Pacifique , 2009 QCCA 755 , B.E. 2009BE-453, Justice Doyon wrote on the same topic: Il faut toutefois rappeler que le critère pour accorder la permission, ici, n'est pas celui de l'existence d'une erreur commise par le juge de première instance. […] Encore faut-il que la question soumise en soit une d'intérêt général que la Cour devrait trancher. [ 7 ] In the present instance, the matter at issue is not one that meets the criteria of the second paragraph of
article 26 C.C.P. The Motion, therefore, must be dismissed, with costs. JACQUES DUFRESNE, J.A.
Loading document…