2021 QCCA 1815, 2021 QCCA 1815

J.S. c. Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec 2021 QCCA 1815 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-029711-215 ( 500-17-114473-203 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: November 29, 2021 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE GUY GAGNON, J.A. DOMINIQUE BÉLANGER, J.A. PETER KALICHMAN, J.A. APPELLANTS J. S. S. S.

PRESENT IN PERSON AND Unrepresented RESPONDENTS COUNSEL SOCIÉTÉ DE L'ASSURANCE AUTOMOBILE DU QUÉBEC STÉPHANIE VOYER Mtre LOUIS TREMBLAY (BY VIDEOCONFERENCE) ( Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec ) COMMISSION DES NORMES, DE L’ÉQUITÉ, DE LA SANTÉ ET DE LA SÉCURITÉ DU TRAVAIL Mtre CAROLINE GELAC SOPHIE ALARY (articling student) ( Clyde & Co Canada ) On appeal from a judgment rendered on September 1 st , 2021 by the Honourable Silvana Conte of the Superior Court , District of Montreal .

DESCRIPTION: Application of Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec and Stéphanie Voyer to dismiss the appeal. (Article 365 C.C.P. ) Application of Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail to dismiss the appeal . (Article 365 C.C.P . ) Clerk at the hearing : Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault

HEARING 10:12 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. 10:12 Mtre Tremblay has nothing to add to his motion. 10:12 Mtre Gelac has nothing to add to her motion. 10:12 Mr. J. S. asks permission to file additional documents. 10:15 Recess of the hearing. 10:20 Resumption of the hearing. 10:20 Opposition by Mtre Gelac and Mtre Tremblay to the filing of the documents. 10:21 The Court will render its decision at the end of the hearing. 10:22 Submissions by Mr. J.

S. 10:29 Reply by Mtre Tremblay. 10:33 Recess of the hearing. 10:39 Resumption of the hearing. 10:39 The Court authorizes the filing of the documents. 10:39 By the Court: judgment – see page 4. Robert Osadchuck, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] A judgment of the Superior Court dismissing a judicial application because of its abusive nature can only be appealed with permission in accordance with

Article 30 par. 2

(3) C.C.P . The Appellants have sought no such permission and the delay in which to do so has expired. [ 2 ] Even if the Appellants were to seek an extension of the delay in which to seek permission, the Court would not grant it because the appeal has no reasonable chance of success. [ 3 ] In granting leave to appeal from a decision declaring a proceeding abusive, the principal issue to be determined is whether there is an apparent weakness in the judgment ( F.F. c.

S.K. , 2019 QCCA 1803 , paragr.4). [ 4 ] Among the reasons that the judge invoked to dismiss the Appellants’ proceedings, was that she found it difficult to discern their legal foundation. She found the allegations, for the most part, to be incomprehensible and unintelligible.

According to the judge, the principal claims advanced by the Appellants were based on bad faith and the falsification of evidence, neither of which was supported by any cogent allegation. [ 5 ] The judge correctly noted that the fact that the Appellants represent themselves did not dispense them from having to respect the rules of civil procedure and to bring coherent proceedings that allow the Respondents to understand why they are being sued and to respond intelligently. [ 6 ] This is no less true in appeal. [ 7 ] The Notice of Appeal, to the extent that it can be clearly understood, does not point to an obvious weakness in the judgment.

On the contrary, the arguments do not address the reasons for which the judge dismissed the actions in the first place much less explain in what way she may have erred in doing so. Furthermore, many of the arguments raised by the Appellants focus on a case management judgment rendered on March 17, 2021, ordering that the three files be joined.

Such a decision can only be appealed with leave (Article 32 C.C.P. ) which was never sought and, given that more than 6 months have now elapsed, cannot be sought now. [ 8 ] In addition, many of the same observations that the judge makes in regards to the Appellants’ proceedings, apply equally well to the Notice of Appeal; the allegations are, for the most part, disjointed, scattered and unintelligible. [ 9 ] Apart from the abusive nature of the proceedings, the judge also held that the three claims were prescribed, having been brought more than 25 years after the Appellants were aware of the grounds on which civil liability could be sought.

The Appellants affirm that the judge had no basis for such a finding but do not demonstrate any obvious weakness in the judge’s conclusion. [ 10 ] The appeal, had it been validly formed, would have no reasonable chance of success.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 11 ] GRANTS the two motions to dismiss the appeal, with legal costs; [ 12 ] DISMISSES the appeal, with legal costs. GUY GAGNON, J.A. DOMINIQUE BÉLANGER, J.A. PETER KALICHMAN, J.A.