2013 QCCA 1761, 2013 QCCA 1761

Lynch Suder Logan c. Wilson Logan 2013 QCCA 1761 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF QUEBEC No: 200-09-007918-128 (200-17-010905-099) DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2013 IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HONOURABLE BENOÎT MORIN, J.A. JOANNE LYNCH SUDER LOGAN APPLICANT – Plaintiff v. GEORGE WILSON LOGAN RESPONDENT – Defendant JUDGMENT [ 1 ] On December 19, 2012, the applicant filed an application for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment rendered on November 16, 2012, by the Superior Court, district of Quebec (Justice Marc St-Pierre).

That application was amended on December 28, 2012. [ 2 ] On April 18, 2013, Justice Jacques J.

Levesque authorized Heenan Blaikie Aubut, the attorneys for the applicant, to cease representing her, and he granted the applicant a delay of 90 days to appoint another attorney. [ 3 ] On July 18, 2013, the applicant presented a motion to extend this delay for a period of 120 days. [ 4 ] On July 19, 2013, Justice France Thibault granted in part this motion and extended the delay to present the application for leave to appeal to October 7, 2013. [ 5 ] The applicant has not appointed another counsel and she asks me to grant her another extension of 120 days to make such an appointment. [ 6 ] The respondent strongly opposes this motion. [ 7 ] He points out the fact that the applicant has had more than 240 days to obtain new counsel since her former attorney sent a declaration to cease representing her on January 24, 2013. [ 8 ] In the motion to cease representing which was granted by Justice Levesque on April 18, 2013, we read: 3.

The APPELLANT – Plaintiff does not collaborate in the present file, and consequently it has become impossible for the undersigned attorneys to continue to represent properly the interests of the APPELANT – Plaintiff; 4.

Furthermore there are irreconcilable differences between the Plaintiff and the undersigned attorneys as to the conduct of the present file; [ 9 ] So, more than nine months after the filing of the amended application for leave to appeal, it is not possible to determine precisely the grounds which the applicant intends to set up in support of her application. [ 10 ] Furthermore the interlocutory judgment rendered by Justice St-Pierre on November 16, 2012, has simply dismissed an exception to dismiss a motion presented by the respondent (Mr Logan) for Recognition and Enforcement of a Foreign Decision, but it has not decided in a final way on the merit of the action instituted by the applicant. [ 11 ] Consequently I am of opinion that the pursuit of justice does not require that leave to appeal be granted.

For those reasons : [ 12 ] The motion for another extension of delay to obtain a new counsel is dismissed; [ 13 ] The amended application for leave to appeal is dismissed; [ 14 ] The whole without costs considering the circumstances of the case.

BENOÎT MORIN, J.A. Joanne Lynch Suder Logan Personally Me Marie-France Vincent Provencher, Marchand For the respondent Date of hearing: October 7, 2013