2021 QCCA 1138, 2021 QCCA 1138

Droit de la famille — 211297 2021 QCCA 1138 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-029491-214 ( 500-12-270289-030 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: July 8, 2021 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. STÉPHANE SANSFAÇON, J.A. PETER KALICHMAN, J.A. APPLICANT I. T. Unrepresented By videoconference RESPONDENT COUNSEL A. B. Mtre CHRISTIAN DUFOURD ( Dufourd Dion, avocats ) By videoconference DESCRIPTION: Application to Dismiss an Appeal (

Article 365 C.C.P. ). Application for Leave to Appeal after the Expiry of the Time Limit (

Article 363 C.C.P. ). Clerk at the hearing : René Gutknecht Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 9:31 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. Discussion between the Court and Mtre Dufourd. 9:32 Submissions by Mr. I. T. 9:43 Discussion between the Court and Mr. I. T. 9:45 Submissions by Mr. I. T. 9:50 Recess of the hearing.

9:52 Resumption of the hearing. The Court exempts Mtre Dufourd to make his submissions. BY THE COURT: Judgment – see page 3. 9:53 Conclusion of the hearing.

René Gutknecht, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] This is an appeal from a judgment rendered on March 25, 2021 by the Superior Court, District of Montreal (the Honourable Paul Mayer), which, inter alia , dismissed Appellant’s application for homologation of a transaction, declared the proceeding abusive and condemned the Appellant to damages arising from such abuse. [ 2 ] The judge described in great detail that Appellant did not repay a loan of $130,000 plus interest as ordered in a divorce judgment of the Superior Court of 2011. [ 3 ] The parties were again before the Superior Court on November 26, 2019, when Respondent agreed that she would accept a payment, on or before January 31, 2020 of $130,000 as full and final reimbursement of the said loan in capital and interest.

The delay for payment appears to have been extended to March 2020, but nevertheless Appellant did not repay it for reasons which he pleads pertained to the release documents. [ 4 ] Consequently, Respondent sought to continue compulsory execution proceedings, principally before the Ontario courts. [ 5 ] Given Appellant’s failure to pay by the specified date, the judge ruled that there was no right to homologate the agreement since it had expired. [ 6 ] Moreover, after an examination of the protracted events over the years since the 2011 judgment, the judge states: [102] The Court concludes that this is a clear case of an individual who is attempting to defeat the ends of justice.

Mr. T. is a litigant who disrespects judicial institutions. As we have seen, he considers legal obligations and the justice system as something subjective and a moving target. His Application was devoid of merit. It is being used as an instrument to delay and obstruct execution proceedings in Ontario. [ 7 ] Accordingly, the judge condemned Appellant to pay compensatory and punitive damages totaling $25,215.10. [ 8 ] Respondent seeks the

summary dismissal of the appeal because: 1) The notice of appeal was not served on Respondent but only notified to her attorney, contrary to

Article 358 C.C.P. ; 2) Leave was not obtained nor sought despite the requirement of

Article 30 C.C.P. given the finding of abuse; 3) No certificate regarding the transcript has been filed as required by

Article 357 C.C.P. ; 4) The appeal has no reasonable chance of success. [ 9 ] Clearly, the failure to obtain leave in the face of a finding of abuse is sufficient to dismiss the appeal. After notification of the application to dismiss the appeal and a few days before the hearing, the Appellant filed an Application for leave to appeal after expiry of the delays. [ 10 ] The judge’s conclusion to refuse the homologation as unfounded and abusive is unassailable on the facts. There is no reason to grant leave to appeal as the requirements of

Article 30 C.C.P. are not satisfied as no point of principle extending beyond the interest of the parties arises from the notice of appeal. This is sufficient to dismiss the application for leave to appeal. Moreover, the factual circumstances of the case and their treatment by the judge leads us to conclude that an appeal would have no reasonable chance of success so that under

Article 363 C.C.P. leave should not be granted. FOR ALL THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE COURT: [ 11 ] DISMISSES Appellant’s Application for leave to appeal with legal costs; [ 12 ] GRANTS Respondent’s Application to dismiss the appeal with legal costs; [ 13 ] DISMISSES the appeal with legal costs.

MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. STÉPHANE SANSFAÇON, J.A. PETER KALICHMAN, J.A.