2024 QCCA 37, 2024 QCCA 37

Droit de la famille — 2427 2024 QCCA 37 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-030460-232 ( 500-12-332049-166 ) MINUTES OF HEARING WARNING: Disclosure and circulation prohibited: The Code of Civil Procedure (“ C.C.P .”) provides that, except as authorized by the court, no person shall disclose or circulate any information that would allow a party or a child whose interests are at stake in a proceeding in a family matter to be identified (art. 16 C.C.P .). DATE: January 11, 2024 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. STÉPHANE SANSFAÇON, J.A. PETER KALICHMAN, J.A.

APPELLANT COUNSEL s. r . UNREPRESENTED By visioconference RESPONDENT COUNSEL c. m . Mtre muriel librati ( Teitelbaum Librati ) By visioconference On appeal from a judgment rendered on February 21, 2023, by the Honourable Thomas J. Davis of the Superior Court , District of Montreal . NATURE OF THE APPEAL: Family – Judgment rendered by default - Authorization for the child to travel abroad with the school or the mother. Clerk at the hearing : Vitélina Saint-Phard Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 11:33 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel and of the appellant.

Preliminary remarks by the Court. 11:35 Submissions by Mr. R.

11:37 Question by the Court and responses from Mr. R.. 11:46 Mr. R. resumes his submissions. 11:48 Question by the Court and responses from Mr. R.. 11:56 Mr. R. resumes his submissions. 11:58 Recess of the hearing. 12:02 Resumption of the hearing. 12:03 BY THE COURT: Judgment – see page 3. Conclusion of the hearing.

Vitélina Saint-Phard, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT WARNING: Disclosure and circulation prohibited: The Code of Civil Procedure (“ C.C.P .”) provides that, except as authorized by the court, no person shall disclose or circulate any information that would allow a party or a child whose interests are at stake in a proceeding in a family matter to be identified (art. 16 C.C.P .). [ 1 ] The appellant appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court (the Honourable Thomas Davis), granting the respondent’s Interim Application for Travel.

The judgment authorized the appellant’s son to travel to the United States on a school trip in April of 2023, authorized the respondent, the child’s mother, to sign the consent form for the trip and to undertake any foreign travel with the son without the appellant’s consent and without being obliged to advise him. [ 2 ] A judgment authorizing travel in the context of divorce proceedings is one that is rendered in the course of a proceeding and thus requires leave to appeal in accordance with

article 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( CCP ). [1] The judgment rendered here is no exception. It was rendered before final judgment and did not bind the judge on the merits. [ 3 ] The appellant has not sought, much less obtained leave and his appeal is thus improperly instituted. Since more than six months have elapsed since the judgment was rendered, the time limit in which to appeal cannot be extended in accordance with

article 363 CCP . [ 4 ] Although these observations are sufficient to dismiss the appeal, the Court adds that even if the appellant had sought leave to appeal on a nunc pro tunc basis (meaning now, for then), it would have been denied since the judgment does not decide in part the litigation and cannot be said to cause the appellant irreparable harm. At any rate, the case has now been heard and decided on the merits such that a determination of the present appeal would be pointless. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 5 ] DISMISSES the appeal without judicial costs. MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. STÉPHANE SANSFAÇON, J.A.

PETER KALICHMAN, J.A.