2018 QCCA 1403, 2018 QCCA 1403

Gulden c. Martineau 2018 QCCA 1403 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-027443-183 (500-17-098369-179) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: August 28, 2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE louis rochette , J.A. mark schrager , J.A. patrick healy , J.A. APPLICANT COUNSEL NORMAN GULDEN Mtre GORDON M. SELIG RESPONDENTS COUNSEL éRIC MARTINEAU Mtre marie-ève charbonneau-trudel (Bélainsky et Avocats) HOSEE JEUDI OFFICE MUNICIPAL D’HABITATION DE MONTRÉAL Mtre PIERRE-ALEXANDRE BOUCHER Mtre MARIE-ALEXANDRA FRANCOU- DESROCHERS (Bélanger Sauvé sencrl) IMPLEADED PARTY RÉGIE DU LOGEMENT Absent

DESCRIPTION : Application for leave to appeal outside the delay from a judgment rendered on March 13, 2018 by the Honourable Mr. Justice Kirkland Casgrain of the Superior Court, District of Montreal (Articles 363, paras. 2 and 357 C.C.P .) Clerk: Lory Beauregard Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 9:30 Continued hearing of August 27, 2018 Counsel were excused from appearing in Court this morning. By the Court: judgment – see page 3.

Lory Beauregard Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Applicant seeks leave beyond the delays to appeal the judgment of the Superior Court, District of Montreal (the Honourable Kirkland Casgrain), which dismissed Applicant’s action in defamation as abusive.

The judgment was rendered from the bench before the parties on March 13, 2018 and subsequently transcribed on April 24, 2018. [ 2 ] Applicant sued his landlord, its administrator and attorney, for alleged defamatory statements made in written proceedings before the Rental Board to cancel Applicant’s residential lease in the subsidized apartment operated by the corporate Respondent. [ 3 ] Primarily, it is alleged that a complaint was filed with the Montreal police department following Applicant’s “inappropriate behaviour and assault on a young woman visiting another tenant in the building”.

At the time of the judgment of the Superior Court, no hearing had yet taken place before the Rental Board. [ 4 ] After hearing the parties and referring to the transcript of Applicant’s deposition, the judge found that the allegation was not defamatory on its face and that the eventual hearing before the Rental Board would determine its truth or falsity. [ 5 ] The exaggerated and weak allegation of damages of some $100,000 indicated to the judge that the action in defamation was “manufactured to stall” proceedings before the Rental Board. [ 6 ] Aside from the issue of delay and in order to obtain leave to appeal, Applicant must, pursuant to

Article 30 C.C.P. , convince the Court that the issue raised in the appeal “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”. [ 7 ] No such issue was raised here. The judge exercised his discretion to dismiss what appears on its face to be an abusive action filed for a collateral purpose for inexistent damages. [ 8 ] Moreover, in order for leave to be granted beyond the delays, Applicant must convince us that the appeal has a reasonable

chance of success (Article 363 C.C.P. ). We are shown no manifest error that would justify the Court of Appeal intervening to reverse the exercise of the judge’s discretion to declare the action abusive and dismiss it. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 9 ] DISMISSES the Application for leave to appeal outside the delays, with legal costs. louis rochette, J.A. mark schrager, J.A. patrick healy, J.A.