2019 QCCA 547, 2019 QCCA 547
Opinion
Amzallag c. Ville de Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts 2019 QCCA 547 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-028142-198 (700-17-009263-129) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: March 25, 2019 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE nicole duval hesler , C.J.Q. MARIE-JOSÉE HOGUE , J.A. JOCELYN F. RANCOURT , J.A. APPLICANT YAMNA AMZALLAG IN PERSON RESPONDENT COUNSEL VILLE DE SAINTE-AGATHE-DES-MONTS Mtre CAROLAN VILLENEUVE (Dunton Rainville) DESCRIPTION : Application for leave to appeal after the expiry of time limit from a judgment rendered on January 24, 2019 by the Honourable Justice David E.
Platts of the Superior Court, District of Terrebonne (Article 363 C.C.P .) Clerk: Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault
HEARING 3:53 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. 3:53 Submissions by Yamna Amzallag. 4:08 Submissions by Mtre Villeneuve. 4:21 Reply by Yamna Amzallag. 4:26 Recess. 4:32 Resumption of the hearing. 4:32 By the Court: judgment – see page 3. 4:35 Conclusion of the hearing. Robert Osadchuck Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The facts go back to 2012, when the City of Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts took judicial proceedings against the petitioner and others to secure the authorization to demolish buildings deemed to be in a decaying and insalubrious condition.
This gave rise to a judgment ordering the petitioners to file a renovation plan meeting municipal regulations. Instead, they went to appeal as was their right. They also filed a permit application, but it was late and incomplete. A Motion to suspend execution of that judgment was denied. The appeal was dismissed. [ 2 ] Petitioner then sought a Motion for Provisional Injunction, interlocutory injunction and a Mandamus Order, which was denied by Mr. Justice Platts, of the Superior Court, on January 24, 2019. [ 3 ] The Petitioner now seeks leave to appeal that judgment outside of delays.
No acceptable explanation has been furnished regarding the lapse of the delay to file an appeal. [ 4 ] Independently from the issue of delays, we are of the unanimous view that the appeal would have no reasonable chance of success. The Petitioner fails to point to any reviewable error in the judgment a quo. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 5 ] DISMISSES Petitioner’s Application to inscribe an appeal out of delay, with legal costs. nicole duval hesler, C. J.Q.
MARIE-JOSÉE HOGUE, J.A. JOCELYN F. RANCOURT, J.A.
Loading document…