2020 QCCA 1133, 2020 QCCA 1133

Droit de la famille — 201305 2020 QCCA 1133 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-028994-200 ( 500-12-344693-191) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: September 8, 2020 THE HONOURABLE GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE, J.A. APPLICANT COUNSEL A. I. Mtre FARZAD BIDGELI-AZARI ( Farzad Bigdeli Azari ) By videoconference RESPONDENT COUNSEL R. K.

Mtre MURIEL LIBRATI ( Teitelbaum Librati ) By videoconference DESCRIPTION: Amended application for leave to appeal from a judgment rendered in the course of the proceeding on June 19, 2020 by the Honourable Anne- France Gagnon of the Superior Court, District of Montreal (Articles 30, para. 2 and 357 C.C.P.) Clerk at the hearing: Mélahelle Sicotte Courtroom: RC.18 HEARING 9:30 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel.

9:35 Submissions by Mtre Bigdeli. 9:38 Discussion between the judge and Mtre Bigdeli. 9:48 Question by the judge and response of Mtre Bigdeli. 9:50 Comments by the judge. 9:53 Submissions by Mtre Librati. 9:55 Reply by Mtre Bigdeli. 9:57 BY THE JUDGE : Judgment – see page 3. Conclusion of the hearing. Mélahelle Sicotte, Clerk at the Hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] I am tasked with adjudicating an application for leave to appeal a safeguard order made on June 19, 2020, by the Honourable Madam Justice Anne-France Gagnon of the Superior Court, District of Montreal.

Said order dismissed the Applicant’s motion to vary interim measures and renewed the interim consent signed by the parties on October 23, 2019 (which had been renewed since then on 3 occasions) until October 13, 2020. It also ordered the Applicant to pay to the Respondent a provision for costs of $1,500. [ 2 ] Leave to appeal a safeguard order made in family matters is granted only exceptionally. The conditions of

article 31 C.C.P. are applied restrictively in this particular context, given the discretionary and temporary nature of the judgment. [1] The Applicant must show that the order determines part of the dispute that may not be remedied by a final judgment and that it causes him irremediable harm, in addition to being seriously flawed. [ 3 ] In the case at hand, the Applicant has failed to make such a demonstration in order to convince me that leave to appeal should be granted with respect to the safeguard order that was made three months ago and will come to an end next month.

Moreover, the arguments raised in the application are, in my opinion, devoid of merit. THEREFORE, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 4 ] DISMISSES the application for leave to appeal; [ 5 ] WITHOUT LEGAL COSTS , considering

article 340 C.C.P. GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE, J.A.