2017 QCCA 712, 2017 QCCA 712

Hooper c. Primeau 2017 QCCA 712 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-026581-173 (500-22-225128-159) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: May 1, 2017 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE julie dutil , J.A. martin vauclair , J.A. mark schrager , J.A. APPLICANT EDMUND MARK HOOPER IN PERSON RESPONDENT COUNSEL MICHEL PRIMEAU Mtre PIERRE GÉLINAS (Madih et associé

s) DESCRIPTION : Application for extension of delay to appeal of a judgment rendered on November 23, 2016 by the Honourable Madam Justice Lise Veilleux of the Court of Quebec, District of Montreal (Articles 30 and 363 C.C.P .) Clerk: Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault

HEARING 11:48 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. 11:48 Submissions by Mr. Hooper. 11:57 Submissions by Mtre Gélinas. Request by Mtre Gélinas to condemn Applicant to reimburse legal fees. 12:09 Reply by Mr. Hooper. 12:12 Recess. 12:16 Resumption of the hearing. 12:16 By the Court: judgment – see page 3.

Robert Osadchuck Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Applicant seeks an extension of the delay to institute an appeal from the judgment of November 23, 2016 of the Court of Quebec, Civil Division, District of Montreal. [ 2 ] Applicant believes that he did file his appeal within the delays given the date of receipt by him of the Notice of judgment after December 9, 2016. However, the Notice of Appeal was filed on January 23, for which no explanation is given. [ 3 ] The amount in issue in appeal is $25,257 (plus interest) claimed from Respondent in first instance and which claim was dismissed by the Court of Quebec.

The claim is for damages arising from the removal of Applicant’s automobile by Respondent. [ 4 ] Given that the value in dispute is less than $60,000,

Article 30 C.C.P provides that leave be obtained. The drafting of the application is such that leave is not formally requested. In any event, leave may only be granted if the matter in issue is “one that should be submitted to [the] Court, for example because it involves a question of principle, a new issue or an issue of law that has given rise to conflicting judicial decisions”. [ 5 ] The application for leave sets forth errors of fact allegedly committed by the judge. However, there is no issue of principle made out by the application, which would satisfy the criterion for leave under

Article 30 C.C.P . [ 6 ] Consequently, the application to extend the delay to appeal cannot be granted. [ 7 ] The Respondent’s verbal request to condemn Applicant to reimburse legal fees is also denied. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 8 ] DISMISSES the application for extension of delay to appeal, with legal costs; [ 9 ] DISMISSES the verbal request to condemn Applicant to reimburse legal fees, without costs.

JULIE DUTIL, J.A. MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.A. MARK SCHRAGER, J.A.