2013 QCCA 659, 2013 QCCA 659

Poplawski c. McGill University Non-Academic Certified Association (MUNACA) 2013 QCCA 659 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-023247-133 ( 500-17-061419-100 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: April 8, 2013 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE YVES-MARIE MORISSETTE, J.A. MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. CLÉMENT GASCON, J.A. PETITIONER SLAWOMIR POPLAWSKI In person RESPONDENT ATTORNEY McGILL UNIVERSITY NON-ACADEMIC CERTIFIED ASSOCIATION (M.U.N.A.C.A.) Mtre Marie-Claude St-Amant MELANÇON, MARCEAU, GRENIER & SCIORTINO

Motion for special leave to appeal from a judgment rendered on July 5, 2012 (rectified on September 12, 2012) by the Honourable Justice Sophie Picard of the Superior Court, District of Montreal. Motion for recusation. Clerk: Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 11 h 23 Beginning of the hearing. 11 h 23 Representations by Mr. Poplawski on his request for recusal of Justice Yves-Marie Morissette. 11 h 33 Recess. 11 h 42 Resumption of the hearing. 11 h 42 Representations by Mr.

Poplawski on his request for recusal of Justice Yves-Marie Morissette. 12 h 06 Justice Morissette dismisses the request for recusal. 12 h 06 Representations by Mr. Poplawski. 12 h 18 Mr. Poplawski presents a written motion for recusal of Justice Yves-Marie Morissette. 12 h 19 Recess. 12 h 32 Resumption of the hearing. 12 h 32 Judgment – see next page. On the motion for special leave to appeal : 12 h 33 Representations by Mr. Poplawski. 12 h 46 End of the hearing. The motion is taken under advisement. Robert Osadchuck Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT

[ 1 ] During the hearing in the Court of Appeal this morning, I dismissed from the bench a motion for my recusal. [ 2 ] The petitioner, Mr. Poplawski, presented a motion for my recusal as the presiding member of a panel sitting today, April 8, 2013, in the Court of Appeal in the district of Montreal.

This motion initially took the form of a letter sent last week to the Chief Justice of the Court, supported today by an oral argument of nearly one hour, and by an additional written submission in the form of a motion presented to the panel during the course of the hearing. [ 3 ] The motion was dismissed as none of the grounds contained therein, including in the additional written submission, evinced a reason for holding that there could exist in the circumstances a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of a rational person adequately apprised of the circumstances of this litigation.

In particular, it is emphatically the case that the fact that a judge rendered in the past a judgment dismissing a motion by a party, cannot in and of itself qualify as a reason for this party to hold a reasonable apprehension of bias against this judge. It is primarily for this reason that I refused to recuse myself in this case. [ 4 ] For these reasons, the motion for recusal was dismissed. YVES-MARIE MORISSETTE, J.A.