2020 QCCA 1651, 2020 QCCA 1651

Fleischer c. Ouimet 2020 QCCA 1651 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-029103-207 ( 500-17-106825-196 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: December 3, 2020 THE HONOURABLE STÉPHANE SANSFAÇON, J.A.

APPLICANT Georgette Fleischer ABSENT AND UNREPRESENTED RESPONDENTS COUNSEL Catherine Ouimet Guy Bilodeau Mtre ANDRÉ-PHILIPPE MALLETTE ( Barreau du Québec ) Absent Louis Brousseau Mtre JEAN-FRANÇOIS LONGTIN ( Bélanger Longtin ) Absent IMPLEADED PARTY Tribunal des professions ABSENT AND UNREPRESETED DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment terminating the proceeding rendered on March 13, 2020 by the Honourable Peter Kalichman of the Superior Court , District of Montreal . Clerk at the hearing : Mélanie Camiré Courtroom: RC-18

HEARING Continuation of the hearing held on November 30, 2020. The parties were excused from appearing in Court. BY THE JUDGE: Judgment – see page 4. Mélanie Camiré, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The applicant seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court, District of Montreal (the Honourable Mr.

Justice Peter Kalichman), dated March 13, 2020, [1] which dismissed her application for judicial review of the decision of the Professions Tribunal (the Honourable Julie Veilleux, Patrick Théroux and Nathalie Fafard) (the “Tribunal”) dated January 23, 2019. [2] The Tribunal had dismissed the applicant’s appeal from a decision rendered by the Disciplinary Council of the Barreau du Québec (the “Council”) [3] , which had dismissed the applicant’s private complaint and had acquitted the respondent-intervenor of seven accusations of professional misconduct.

According to the Council, the complaint was dismissed because the allegations were unsupported by the evidence and represented a distortion of the facts and because the allegations were excessive, frivolous and unfounded. [ 2 ] In support of her application for leave to appeal, the applicant alleges everything ranging from, among other complaints, the general corruption of Barreau members (following her Google search) and “lawyers protecting lawyers”, [4] to the briefness of Justice Kalichman’s career on the bench, to his alleged multiple errors that range from “flouting” the principle of Vavilov [5] and Bell Canada [6] to “cherry picking” paragraphs from said decisions, to his ignorance of the Canadian constitution and to his suppression of facts in order not to have to deal with inconvenient ones, with the intent to exonerate his “colleague”, the respondent-intervenor.

As to the three Tribunal judges, the applicant accuses Judge Veilleux of “constantly interrupting, cutting off, and needling her” during the hearing of the appeal, while complaining that the two other judges did not intervene enough, adding that Judge Veilleux was in a situation of conflict of interest (as was Justice Kalichman), with the result that the applicant could not present her arguments adequately. The applicant also formulates a series of accusations against just about every person involved in the file.

As to the members of the Council who originally dismissed her private complaint against the respondent-intervenor, she simply alleges that they were “contaminated”. [ 3 ] In his clearly reasoned judgment, Justice Kalichman intelligibly and convincingly answered every argument raised by the applicant.

He noted that the Tribunal rightly considered that, as the applicant’s original notice of appeal did not raise any specific error of law or manifest error of fact, her main ground of appeal was that the Council had a poor grasp of the underlying facts and, accordingly, the Tribunal found that her appeal amounted to no more than a request to retry the case, which is not the purpose of an appeal. Justice Kalichman also considered, and dismissed, her other grounds for judicial review.

I see no error in his reasons nor in his conclusion to dismiss the application for judicial review. [ 4 ] The application for leave to appeal is governed by

article 30, para. 2(5) C.C.P. As the matter at issue does not involve a question of principle, a new issue or an issue of law that has given rise to conflicting judicial decisions (article 30, para. 3 C.C.P. ), and as it is not in the interest of justice that the matter at issue should be submitted to the Court, leave to appeal will not be granted. FOR THESE REASONS THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 5 ] DISMISSES the application for leave to appeal, with legal costs. STÉPHANE SANSFAÇON, J.A.