2012 QCCA 1576, 2012 QCCA 1576

9172-9111 Quebec Inc. c. Kilani 2012 QCCA 1576 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-022781-124 (500-22-188708-120) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: August 31, 2012 THE HONOURABLE ALLAN R. HILTON, J.A. PETITIONERS 9172-9111 QUEBEC INC. and MAISON DE MEUBLES SASA INC. and WALID SASA and DANIEH MADFAI absent absent RESPONDENT ATTORNEY WAEL KILANI absent

Motion for leave to appeal from a judgment rendered on June 14, 2012 by the Honourable Mr. Justice François Bousquet of the Court of Quebec, District of Montreal. Clerk: Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: RC.18 HEARING Continuation of the August 29, 2012 hearing. Counsel and parties are informed that judgment will be rendered on the minutes of the hearing and their presence is not required. Judgment: see next page.

Robert Osadchuck Clerk JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Danieh Madfai applies for leave to appeal the judgment of the Court of Quebec that homologated a verbal transaction entered into during the morning adjournment of a trial. The applicant, who is not a member of the Bar, also sought to act on behalf of the other three defendants in the Court of Quebec.

I explained to her at the hearing that she could not do so, despite what she may have been told, and that the judgment was therefore executory against those other parties. [ 2 ] In homologating the transaction, the trial judge heard evidence from the applicant and the counsel who was then representing her. Based on contradictory evidence as to whether there had been an agreement to settle the litigation, the trial judge concluded that such an agreement had been proved, but that the applicant reneged on it after it had been accepted.

According to the trial judge, the applicant had accepted to pay the proposed amount of settlement - $4,500 – but understood that it would be paid in two equal instalments

instead of one payment of $4,000 and another of $500. [ 3 ] The applicant seeks, in effect, to retry that single issue. She claims to have misunderstood what offer she had accepted, which was contradicted by her counsel when she testified before the judge. [ 4 ] Whatever the merits of the applicant's position may have been before the trial judge, it is improbable that this Court would be in a valid position to intervene on his findings of fact. In such circumstances, leave should not be granted. [ 5 ] I therefore dismiss the application for leave to appeal, without costs. ALLAN R. HILTON, J.A.