2016 QCCA 2072, 2016 QCCA 2072

Wilson c. Dias 2016 QCCA 2072 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-026369-165 (500-17-087294-156) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: December 14, 2016 THE HONOURABLE MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. PETITIONER COUNSEL KEITH WILSON 7164653 Canada inc. Mtre Keith Douglas Wilson ( ATiLegal ) RESPONDENTS COUNSEL Nelson Dias 9102-0404 QUÉBEC INC. Mtre Julien Berard DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment rendered in the course of the proceeding on August 26, 2016 by Lucie Fournier of the Superior Court, District of Montréal (art. 31 C.C.P. ) Clerk: Adam Scott Courtroom: RC-18

HEARING 14:07 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. 14:08 Representations by Mtre Wilson. 14:23 End of the representations by Mtre Wilson. Suspension of the hearing. 14:27 Continuation of the hearing. Representations by Mtre Berard. 14:45 End of the representations by Mtre Berard. 14:46 Reply by Mtre Wilson. 14:49 End of the reply by Mtre Wilson. Suspension of the hearing. 15:18 Continuation of the hearing. BY THE JUDGE: Judgment – see page 3. 15:22 Conclusion of the hearing. (

s) Adam Scott Clerk BY THE JUDGE JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Pursuant to art. 31 C.C.P. , [1] the petitioners seek leave to appeal the judgment of the Superior Court, District of Montréal (the honourable Madam Justice Lucie Fournier), dated August 28, 2016 (notice of judgment dated September 1, 2016), dismissing their motion to dismiss the respondents’ action. [2] Said motion to dismiss was based on both art. 54.1 and 165, para. 4 of the former Code of Civil Procedure [3] (“f. C.C.P. ”), now respectively art. 51 and 168, 2 nd para.

C.C.P. [ 2 ] According to a long line of cases, judgments dismissing motions to dismiss based on art. 165 f.

C.C.P. or art. 168 C.C.P. are not susceptible of appeal, apart from a few, stringently applied exceptions ( res judicata and lis pendes , absence of jurisdiction, new and important questions of law which must be answered immediately to the benefit of the public interest or the administration of justice). [4] Such judgments do not bind the trial judge and, consequently, cannot be regarded as causing an irremediable prejudice to a party within the meaning of art. 31 C.C.P. (art. 29 f.C.C.P. ). [ 3 ] For the same reasons, a similar rule applies to the dismissal of a motion to dismiss based on art. 54.1 f.

C.C.P. or 51 C.C.P. Such a judgment, which does not bind the trial judge either, is generally not viewed as causing an irremediable prejudice to the party and leave to appeal is granted only in exceptional circumstances. [5] [ 4 ] None of the exceptions mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs applies in the present case, and the motion for leave to appeal shall therefore be dismissed. [ 5 ] FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED REASONS, the motion for leave to appeal IS DISMISSED , with legal costs in favour of the respondents. MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A.