2016 QCCA 1279, 2016 QCCA 1279

Lichtman c. Royal Bank of Canada 2016 QCCA 1279 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-026052-167 (500-17-086825-158) DATE: August 2, 2016 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.A. GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE, J.A. MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. JOAN LICHTMAN APPELLANT – Defendant v. ROYAL BANK OF CANADA RESPONDENT – Plaintiff JUDGMENT [ 1 ] This is a motion to dismiss an appeal of an ex parte judgment granting Respondent's Motion introductory of suit.

Respondent sought and obtained a personal condemnation against Appellant as well as an order of surrender and sale under control of justice of the immovable property hypothecated by Appellant to Respondent as collateral security for the loan advanced by Respondent. [ 2 ] Appellant requested a postponement of the trial, apparently by written communication addressed both to the Superior Court and to Respondent’s attorneys.

Appellant was advised in writing by the coordinating judge of the Superior Court that in view of Respondent’s contestation of the request for postponement, she would be required to make representations before the Superior Court at the inception of the hearing.

Regardless of this, Appellant did not attend the hearing the next day and her request for postponement was denied; as a result, the trial proceeded ex parte where the outstanding loan and Appellant's default were entered into evidence without contradiction and the cross-claim was dismissed, in the absence of any evidence to support same. [ 3 ] Appellant did not appeal the judgment refusing the postponement and in any event such an appeal would require leave under

article 32 C.C.P. which leave has not been requested or granted. [ 4 ] Appellant sought the revocation of the judgment in first instance and the plumitif of the Superior Court file indicates that this motion in revocation has not been heard, nor, obviously decided. [ 5 ] The appeal before us should be dismissed as it has no reasonable chance of success. The judgment is based on uncontradicted evidence.

The Appeal Court will not intervene in matters of fact where no palpable and overriding error is demonstrated which is the case at bar. [ 6 ] As well, Appellant's contention that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over the matter is manifestly without merit. [ 7 ] Appellant should be advised that judicial proceedings do not provide a license to use inappropriate language and that persisting in such conduct may result in the sanctions foreseen by the legislation and rules dealing with quarrelsome conduct before the Courts. Appellant would be well advised to take due notice of this.

FOR ALL THE FOREGOING REASONS: [ 8 ] The application to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED ; [ 9 ] The appeal is DISMISSED ; [ 10 ] The whole with legal costs. MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.A.

GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE, J.A. MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. Mrs. Joan Lichtman Personally Mtre Mary-Pier Marcheterre Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP For Respondent Date of hearing: August 1, 2016