2022 QCCA 1266, 2022 QCCA 1266

Michalakopoulos c. Barreau de Montréal 2022 QCCA 1266 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-10-007857-228 (500-36-009799-217) DATE: September 21, 2022 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE GUY COURNOYER, J.A. PANAGIOTIS MICHALAKOPOULOS APPLICANT – Appelant v.

BARREAU DE MONTRÉAL RESPONDENT – Respondent JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The applicant seeks leave to appeal from a judgment rendered by the Superior Court (justice Chantal Masse) on June 17, 2022 dismissing his appeal from a decision of a Presiding Justice of the Peace ( “PJP “) which denied a revocation of judgment presented pursuant to s. 250 of the Code of Penal Procedure . [ 2 ] The applicant is a former member of the Quebec Bar who was charged with two counts of illegal practice of law.

He was convicted by default and claimed that he was never served with the statement of offences by e-mail which was duly authorized pursuant to s. 24 of the Code of Penal Procedure . [ 3 ] The applicant raises a plethora of errors committed by the Superior Court, errors purported to be errors of law alone.

They include questions about: (1) whether the PJP erred in proceeding with both stages of revocation during the same hearing; (2) whether the PJP erred in deciding that the Applicant was properly served by e-mail and that the Applicant failed to establish that he wasn’t prevented from submitting his defence; (3) whether the PJP failed in his duty of fairness toward the Applicant, a self-represented defendant; (4) whether the PJP concluded erroneously that the Applicant failed to establish the nature of his defence: (5) whether the PJP committed any palpable and overriding error; (6) whether the PJQ properly interpreted the case law and principles relevant to a revocation of judgment. [ 4 ] The Superior Court’s decision is thorough and reasoned.

Whether the undersigned agrees with its findings is not the focus of a leave application. [ 5 ] A second appeal should be limited to cases in which the applicant can demonstrate some exceptional circumstance justifying a further appeal [1] . Leave to appeal is to be granted sparingly. Here, none of the issues raises a question of law or principle, new issue, conflicting case law important to the administration of penal justice in Quebec that warrants that leave to appeal be granted.

All of the issues raised by the applicant are merely the application of known principles. [ 6 ] Therefore, leave to appeal must be dismissed. FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 7 ] DISMISSES leave to appeal, with costs. GUY COURNOYER, J.A. Panagiotis Michalakopoulos Unrepresented Mtre Nathalie Guertin BARREAU DE MONTRÉAL For the Respondent Date of hearing: September 16, 2022