2023 QCCA 926, 2023 QCCA 926

Droit de la famille — 231183 2023 QCCA 926 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-030519-235 ( 500-12-340020-183 ) MINUTES OF HEARING WARNING : Disclosure and circulation prohibited: The Code of Civil Procedure (“ C.C.P .”) provides that, except as authorized by the court, no person shall disclose or circulate any information that would allow a party or a child whose interests are at stake in a proceeding in a family matter to be identified (art. 16 C.C.P .). DATE: July 7, 2023 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE STÉPHANE SANSFAÇON, J.A. FRÉDÉRIC BACHAND, J.A. LORI RENÉE WEITZMAN, J.A. APPELLANT COUNSEL A. L. Mtre Michael N. Bergman Mtre DONA OBEID ( Bergman & Associé

s) RESPONDENT COUNSEL O. LI. Mtre François J. Poirier ( Bernard & Brassard ) By videoconference On appeal from a judgment rendered on March 29, 2023, by the Honourable Charles Bienvenu of the Superior Court , District of Montréal . DESCRIPTION: Application to dismiss an appeal (Article 365 C.C.P .). Clerk at the hearing : René Gutknecht Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING

9:30 Continuation of the hearing held on July 6, 2023. The parties were excused from appearing in Court. BY THE COURT: Judgment – see page 3. Conclusion of the hearing. René Gutknecht, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The respondent seeks the

summary dismissal of an appeal brought against a divorce judgment in which the Superior Court

i) dismissed the appellant’s contention that she was unable to work since the parties’ separation in August 2018, ii) determined that spousal support payable for her benefit would be subject to a review term set for June 30, 2024, iii) ordered the partition of the family residence, which the parties held in undivided co-ownership, iv) dismissed the appellant’s claim for a lump sum and

v) dismissed her claim for a provision for costs. [1] [ 2 ] It bears adding that the judge made a number of findings criticizing the manner in which the appellant conducted the litigation. Specifically, he found many of her claims to be exaggerated, unclear and disproportionate, and he deplored the fact that her attitude had caused the proceeding at first instance to be needlessly long and costly.

The judge also hinted that, had the respondent presented a claim for abuse of procedure, he likely would have ruled in his favour. [ 3 ] The entirety of the appellant’s case before the Court is presented in a single paragraph in her notice of appeal. It reads as follows: 5. The Judge erred in fact and in law by imputing income to the Plaintiff for a period of time during which she was unemployed as a result of illness or ailments and the need to care for the children, misapplying the principles established by the case law in that regard:

a) By reducing the monthly child support payments from $1200 to $500. If the imputed income had not been effected then the retroactive reduction of child support would not have taken place;

b) By fixing the alimentary pension for the Appellant a term of one year ending June 30th, 2024 rather than a term ending on June 30th, 2025, the Appellant justifying needing two years to become financially self-sufficient and autonomous;

c) By ordering the immediate sale of the matrimonial residence rather than delaying its sale until the expiration of the term for the alimentary pension for the Appellant, during which term the Plaintiff should have the exclusive use of the matrimonial residence. By ordering the immediate sale the Appellant has an increased burden of expenses and adjustment at a time when she is re-establishing her ability to work;

d) By not granting a lump sum for alimentary purposes to offset the reduction in previous alimentary pension and to allow Appellant a new beginning;

e) By not granting any provisions for cost, having regard to the principles of alimentary need. [ 4 ] We agree with the respondent that such generic and conclusory statements fall well short of the applicable standard, which requires the appellant to identify precisely one or several errors that could justify the Court’s intervention, bearing in mind the relevant standards of appellate review which — as is well known — are particularly stringent in relation to questions of fact and mixed questions of fact and law. [ 5 ] Although the Court is generally reluctant to entertain applications for

summary dismissal in family matters, [2] this is one of those cases where the application ought to be granted. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 6 ] GRANTS the respondent’s application to dismiss the appeal; [ 7 ] DISMISSES the appeal; [ 8 ] THE WHOLE without costs, given the nature of the matter. STÉPHANE SANSFAÇON, J.A.

FRÉDÉRIC BACHAND, J.A. LORI RENÉE WEITZMAN, J.A.