2019 QCCA 1977, 2019 QCCA 1977

Droit de la famille — 192339 2019 QCCA 1977 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-028587-194 ( 500-12-342007-196 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: October 25, 2019 THE HONOURABLE LUCIE FOURNIER, J.A. APPLICANT COUNSEL L. R. Mtre Danielle Oiknine ( Oiknine & Associé

s) Absent RESPONDENT COUNSEL D. L. Mtre Muriel Librati ( Teitelbaum Librati ) Absent DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from judgments rendered in the course of the proceeding on September 12 and 13 2019 by the Honourable Aline U.K. Quach of the Superior Court , District of Montreal . Clerk at the hearing : Elisabeth Lepage Courtroom: RC-18

HEARING 9:30 Commencement of the hearing. Continuation of the hearing held on October 24 2019. The parties were excused from appearing in Court. Judgment – see page 3. Conclusion of the hearing. Elisabeth Lepage, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The applicant seeks leave to appeal the judgment that refers his motion to dismiss the respondent's originating application under

article 51 C.C.P. to the judge charged with presiding over the hearing on the issues relating to the existence of the parties' marriage, which hearing is scheduled on March 4, 5 and 6, 2020, and that prohibits him from filing other applications until then. * * * [ 2 ] On August 6, 2019, the Court partially allowed the applicant's appeal of a judgment rendered in the course of a proceeding. It wrote: [1] [26] ORDERS that the hearing before the Superior Court on August 8, 2019 proceed on that date for the purpose of first determining the existence of the marriage and the constitution of

an act of marriage and, in the event the marriage is so proven, that the proceedings then continue to consider the application of

section 21.1 of the Divorce Act . [ 3 ] On August 8, 2019, given that a single day would be insufficient to hear the parties and their lawyers on these issues, the Superior Court scheduled the hearing for March 4, 5 and 6, 2020. [ 4 ] On September 4, 2019, pursuant to articles 49 and 51 C.C.P., the applicant notified a " Re-modified application to dismiss the Demande introductive d’instance en divorce, demande pour mesures provisoires et demande pour fixer une audition pour l’obtention d’un Get and to declare said proceedings abusive ". [ 5 ] On September 12, 2019, the trial judge referred that application to the judge charged with presiding over the hearing scheduled on March 4, 5 and 6, 2020.

She wrote: [2] [7] Le 6 août 2019, la Cour d’appel accueille en

partie l’appel. Elle ordonne que lors de l’audition fixée au 8 août 2019 devant la Cour supérieure, les parties procèdent sur les questions portant sur l’existence d’un mariage et la constitution d’un acte de mariage et, dans l’éventualité où la preuve d’un mariage serait établie, que les procédures continuent afin de considérer l’application de l’

article 21.1 de la

Loi sur le divorce . […] [18] Ainsi, toutes les demandes seront déférées au juge qui entendra la cause au fond. [19] DÉFÈRE au juge du mérite la Re-modified application to dismiss the Demande introductive d’instance en divorce, demande pour mesures provisoires et demande pour fixer une audition pour l’obtention d’un Get and to declare said proceedings abusive ; [ 6 ] She also forbade the applicant from " présenter quelle qu’autre demande à la Cour avant que l’audition des 4, 5 et 6 mars 2020 n’ait lieu ". [3] The judge corrected her judgment on September 13, 2019. [4] [ 7 ] The applicant has not established that the judgment rendered determines the dispute or even a part thereof, or that it causes him irremediable injury, as required by

article 31 C.C.P. on which his application is based. [ 8 ] In fact, the judgment is more of a case management measure relating to the conduct of the proceeding, which cannot be appealed unless it appears unreasonable in light of the guiding principles of procedure. It is by relying on these very principles that the judge referred the applicant's new application to the judge who will preside over the hearing that has already been scheduled and ordered by the Court.

[ 9 ] A leave to appeal based on articles 31 and 32 C.C.P. is also governed by articles 9 and 18 C.C.P. As the judge mentioned, the principle of proportionality and the best interests of justice require that the applicant's application be referred to the judge who will hear the case on the merits. The appeal, therefore, must fail. FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 10 ] DISMISSES the applicant's application for leave to appeal; [ 11 ] WITH legal costs . LUCIE FOURNIER, J.A.