2011 QCCA 1996, 2011 QCCA 1996

Fortin c. Kefalidis (Estate of) 2011 QCCA 1996 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-022046-114 ( 540-17-004674-114 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: October 31, 2011 THE HONOURABLE ALLAN R. HILTON, J.A. PETITIONER ATTORNEY MICHELINE FORTIN Mtre Calliope Hadjis HADJIS & HADJIS RESPONDENT ATTORNEY ESTATE OF THE LATE ELEUTHERE KEFALIDIS Mtre Vassilios Giannis BOUCHER HARPER

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM AN INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT RENDERED ON SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 BY THE HON. CATHERINE MANDEVILLE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT, DISTRICT OF LAVAL Clerk: Annick Nguyen Court Room: RC.18 HEARING 9:30 Commencement of the hearing. 9:31 Submission by Mtre Hadjis. 9:33 Submission by Mtre Giannis. Reply of Mtre Hadjis. 9:34 Suspension. 9:40 Resumption of the hearing. BY THE JUDGE. Judgment – See page 3. 9:41 Conclusion of the hearing.

Annick Nguyen Clerk JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Micheline Fortin seeks leave to appeal an interlocutory judgment of the Superior Court that dismissed her application for a safeguard order. The latter proceedings sought to have $125,113.70 which she says she is entitled to recover to be deposited in court in the context of her proceedings claiming that sum.

The matter arises out of the liquidation of the estate of her late spouse in fact, Eleuthere Kefalidis. [ 2 ] The applicant fears that the liquidators of the estate will disperse the assets in order, among other reasons, to pay legal fees to defend her action. [ 3 ] The granting or dismissal of an application for a safeguard order is inherently discretionary. The motions judge determined that the allegations of the safeguard application, even if taken as true, seemed more in the nature of a seizure before judgment and that

these allegations did not demonstrate that the recovery of the claim was imperilled by the conduct of the liquidators. [ 4 ] Without expressing any opinion as of the correctness of the judgment, the grounds alleged in support of the motion to obtain leave to appeal do not show that there are any questions of law arising of the judgment that warrant an examination by the Court of Appeal. [ 5 ] The motion is accordingly DISMISSED, with costs. ALLAN R. HILTON, J.A.