2021 QCCA 790, 2021 QCCA 790

Iacono c. Brown 2021 QCCA 790 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-029426-210 ( 500-17-108174-197 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: May 10, 2021 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE JULIE DUTIL, J.A. JACQUES J. LEVESQUE, J.A. ROBERT M. MAINVILLE, J.A.

APPLICANT JOANNE IACONO Unrepresented By videoconference RESPONDENT COUNSEL MARIA BROWN Mtre JEREMY MEGUERDITCHIAN ( Mercadante Di Pace ) By videoconference DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal after the expiry of time limit (Article 363 C.C.P. ) Clerk at the hearing : Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 12:48 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. 12:48 Submissions by Mrs. Iacono. 13:09 Recess. 13:12 Resumption of the hearing. Robert Osadchuck, Clerk at the hearing

JULIE DUTIL, J.A. JACQUES J. LEVESQUE, J.A. ROBERT M. MAINVILLE, J.A. JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The applicant, Joanne Iacono, seeks an extension for leave to appeal the judgment of November 17, 2020 rendered by the Honourable Jeffrey Edwards of the Superior Court, District of Montreal, which (

a) dismissed her judicial application for conveyance of title to a property belonging to the respondent, Maria Brown; (

b) declared null and void the promise to purchase and the addendum thereto entered into by the parties with respect to that property; (

c) declared that the proceedings constituted an abuse in accordance with articles 51 and following of the Code of Civil Procedure (“ CCP ”), and; (

d) condemned the applicant to pay to the respondent an amount of $20,853 with legal interest and the additional indemnity calculated from the date of the judgment. [ 2 ] The notice of judgment is dated February 9, 2021 and the application for an extension for leave to appeal was filed with the Court on March 26, 2021, thus outside the 30 day timeframe provided by

article 360 CCP . As a result, the appeal may only be initiated with leave of the Court and only if the Court considers that it has a reasonable chance of success and if it was impossible for the appellant to act earlier (art. 363 CCP ). [ 3 ] In her application, the applicant provides no explanation as to why it was impossible for her to act earlier. The application may therefore be dismissed on this sole ground. [ 4 ] Moreover, even if it had been established that the applicant could not have acted earlier, the appeal presents no reasonable chance of success.

Indeed, Justice Edwards found that the applicant committed a civil fraud with respect to the respondent while acting at the same time as her financial advisor. The judge found abundant evidence to justify this conclusion. The applicant fails to convince the Court that the judge committed a palpable and overriding error of fact or of mixed fact or law in so finding or that he would have otherwise erred in law. As a result, the Court is of the view that the proposed appeal has no reasonable chance of success and is purely dilatory. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 5 ] DISMISSES the application, with legal costs.