2013 QCCA 1612, 2013 QCCA 1612

Liu c. McGill University Non-Academic Certified Association (MUNACA) 2013 QCCA 1612 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-023571-136 ( 500-17-074065-122 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: September 16, 2013 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE JULIE DUTIL, J.A. MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. JACQUES R. FOURNIER, J .A. APPELLANT JISHENG LIU Absent RESPONDENT ATTORNEY McGILL UNIVERSITY NON-ACADEMIC CERTIFIED ASSOCIATION (MUNACA) Mtre Sibel Ataogul MELANÇON MARCEAU GRENIER & SCIORTINO

Motion to dismiss the appeal from of a judgment rendered on April 11, 2013 by the Honourable Madam Justice Claudette Picard of the Superior Court, District of Montreal. Amended motion to declare the plaintiff-appellant a quarrelsome litigant. Motion for a stay of proceedings. Motion for recusation. Clerk: Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING Joint hearing of the motions in the files 500-09-023571-136 and 500-09-023661-135. 9 h 31 Beginning of the hearing. 9 h 31 Mr. Liu is absent although being duly called.

On the motion for recusation: 9 h 31 Representations by Mtre Ataogul. 9 h 31 By the Court: judgment – see next page. On the motion for a stay of proceedings: 9 h 34 By the Court: judgment – see next page.

On the request to be authorized to submit a motion for leave to appeal and a motion for leave to appeal in the file 500-09-023661-135 and on the motion to dismiss the appeal and the motion to declare the appellant a quarrelsome litigant in the file 500-09-023571-136. 9 36 Submissions by Mtre Ataogul on the appellant's request to be authorized to submit a motion for leave to appeal and the appellant's motion for leave to appeal. 9 h 41 Submissions by Mtre Ataogul on the motion to dismiss the appeal. 9 h 45 Submissions by Mtre Ataogul on the motion to declare the appellant a quarrelsome litigant. 9 h 50 Recess. 10 h 16 Resumption of the hearing. 10 h 16 By the Court: judgment on the motion for authorization to submit a motion for leave to appeal and the motion for leave to appeal – see next page. 10 h 18 By the Court: judgment on the motion to dismiss the appeal – see next page. 10 h 19 The hearing is continued to September 20 th , 2013 at 9 h 30 in room Pierre-Basile- Mignault in order to render judgment on the motion to declare the appellant a quarrelsome litigant.

Robert Osadchuck BY THE COURT

JUDGMENT On the motion for recusation: [ 1 ] Mr. Liu seeks the recusation of seven judges of the Court of Appeal pursuant to article 234(4) C.C.P . which reads as follows: 234 . A judge may be recused, in particular: […]

(4) If the judge is directly interested in an action pending before a court in which any of the parties will be called to sit as judge; [ 2 ] Justice Morissette, Kasirer, St-Pierre and Bélanger are not designated to hear any of the motions presented today (September 16 th , 2013). [ 3 ] For their part, the judges seized with these motions are not, within the meaning of article 234(4), "judges directly interested in an action pending before a court in which any of the parties will be called to sit as judges". [ 4 ] The Court is of the view that Mr.

Liu has raised no cause for recusation and that his motion should be dismissed. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : [ 5 ] DISMISSES the motion for recusation, with costs. On the motion for a stay of proceedings: [ 6 ] Mr. Liu requests a stay of proceedings regarding the motions presented by MUNACA on September 16 th , 2013. He argues that since he filed with the Court a motion for leave to appeal the decision rendered by the panel refusing a postponement of the hearing, he has a right to obtain a stay of proceedings. [ 7 ] Mr.

Liu cannot appeal to the Court of Appeal from the decision of the panel to refuse his request for postponement. [ 8 ] Therefore, there is no ground to grant his motion for a stay of proceedings. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 9 ] DISMISSES the motion, with costs.

On the respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal: [ 10 ] On April 11, 2013, the Superior Court declared the appellant a vexatious litigant with respect to the respondent and rendered various orders restricting the appellant's right to institute proceedings against said respondent. [ 11 ] The appellant filed an inscription in appeal on or about May 8 th , 2013. [ 12 ] The respondent now seeks the

summary dismissal of the appeal pursuant to

article 501, first para., subpara. 4.1 and 5, C.C.P. [ 13 ] The Court is of the view that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success, raising as it does grounds that only confirm the vexatious nature of the appellant's proceedings and his quarrelsome conduct. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 14 ] GRANTS the motion to dismiss the appeal, with costs; [ 15 ] DISMISSES the appeal, with costs. JULIE DUTIL, J.A.

MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. JACQUES R. FOURNIER, J.A.