2014 QCCA 2144, 2014 QCCA 2144

Droit de la famille — 142918 2014 QCCA 2144 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-024421-141 ( 500-12-295573-087) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: November 20, 2014 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE françois pelletier , J.A. nicholas kasirer , J.A. dominique bélanger , J.A. APPELLANT N. J. IN PERSON RESPONDENT COUNSEL M. H. Mtre CHARLES-JUSTIN NICHOLS ( Charles-Justin Nichols, avocat )

Motion to dismiss the appeal and to declare the appellant a quarrelsome litigant (Articles 511 and 54.1 et seq . C.C.P. and Rule 95 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal in Civil Matters ) On appeal from a judgment rendered on April 8, 2014 by the Honourable Madam Justice Sylvie Devito of the Superior Court, District of Montreal NATURE OF THE APPEAL : Family law – accessory measures Clerk: Linda Côté Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 10:25 Commencement of the hearing. Submissions by Mtre Charles-Justin Nichols on the motion to dismiss the appeal. 11:34 Submissions by Ms N.

J. 11:50 Recess of the hearing. 12:00 Resumption. Reply by Mtre Nichols. 12:01 Recess of the hearing. 12:02 Resumption. Unanimous judgment pronounced by the Honourable Madam Justice Dominique Bélanger – see page 3. 12:07 Conclusion of the hearing. Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT

[1] N.

J. has inscribed in appeal a judgment of the Superior Court, District of Montreal (the Honourable Sylvie Devito), rendered inthe practice division on April 8, 2014, which confirmed a consent agreement signed on that day and postponed the remainder of thehearing until May 5, 2014, at which time the parties were to have filed a joint declaration of readiness (“déclaration commune de dossiercomplet”) with a view to fixing a date to hear the principal motion on the merits. [2] In the conclusions of her written argument, Ms J. has also asked that two judgments rendered by the Honourable Carole Halléeof the Superior Court on May 5, 2014 and May 6, 2014, in practice division, be reversed.

Madame Justice Hallée ordered, inter alia, thatthe principal motion brought by Ms J. be continued sine die and that Ms J. be prohibited from bringing any further proceedings in the fileuntil such time as she filed the joint declaration of readiness. [3] The respondent filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and to have Ms J. declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to

article 54.1C.C.P. [4] Ms J. is self-represented. She has brought the principal motion in the Superior Court to obtain an order constituting a trust fromwhich support could be paid to her children by the respondent, her ex-husband, following the divorce pronounced between the parties. *** [5] The judgment of Devito, J., as well as those rendered by Hallée, J., are interlocutory judgments. As such, they are onlysusceptible of appeal with leave pursuant to articles 29 and 511 C.C.P. The appeal is thus improperly formed and must be dismissed onthat basis alone: Productions Pixcom inc. v.

Fabrikant, 2005 QCCA 703 , J.E. 2005-1493 (C.A.). [6] Even if Ms J. had filed a motion for leave to appeal, we are of the view that leave would have been denied. The threejudgments of the Superior Court are case management decisions that order nothing that cannot be remedied by final judgment. In anyevent, given the broad discretionary powers afforded judges in matters of case management, the pursuit of justice, within the meaning ofarticle 511 C.C.P., does not require that leave be granted.

This Court will only interfere in case management decisions in exceptionalcircumstances, which circumstances are plainly not present here. Indeed if leave were granted, an appeal would have no reasonableprospect of success. [7] On the other hand, the respondent asks the court to have Ms J. declared a vexatious litigant.

While Ms J.’s procedures mayappear exaggerated, we are of the view that the record as it now stands does not provide sufficient grounds for such an order. [8] As a final note, it is plain from the reasons given by Devito, J. and Hallée, J. that Ms J.’s motion asking for the constitution of atrust and her motion to cancel the consent agreement of April 8, 2014 remain to be decided. The most effective means to that end, in theview of the case management judges, would be the filing by Ms J. of the joint declaration of readiness.

FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED REASONS, the Court: [9] GRANTS the motion to dismiss the appeal; [10] DISMISSES the appeal; [11] DISMISSES the motion to have the petitioner declared a vexatious litigant; [12] The whole without costs given the nature of the dispute. FRANÇOIS PELLETIER, J.A. NICHOLAS KASIRER, J.A. DOMINIQUE BÉLANGER, J.A.