2012 QCCA 2310, 2012 QCCA 2310

Mazhero c. CBC Radio-Canada 2012 QCCA 2310 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-023182-124 ( 500-17-071464-120 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: December 21, 2012. THE HONOURABLE YVES-MARIE MORISSETTE, J.A. APPELLANT ATTORNEY(

S) FRANCIS MAZHERO In person RESPONDENT(

S) ATTORNEY(

S) CBC RADIO CANADA BELL CANADA MICROSOFT CORPORATION NEW ZIMBABWE MEDIA LTD. Me Stéphane Richer Mtre Barry Landy SPIEGEL, SOHMER, INC .

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT RENDERED ON NOVEMBER 14, 2012 BY THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE CAROL COHEN OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MONTREAL. Clerk: Elena Captari Court Room: RC.18 HEARING 10h36: Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. 10h36: Submissions by Mr. Mazhero. 11h02: Submissions by Mtre Landy. 11h12: Reply by Mr. Mazhero. 11h19: Suspension of the hearing. 14h00: Resumption of the hearing. 14h00:BY THE JUDGE End of the hearing.

Elena Captari Clerk JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The petitioner, who is self-represented, seeks leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment of the Superior Court rendered on November 14, 2012. [ 2 ] From his motion for leave to appeal, and from other materials emanating from him and filed in support of his leave application, the petitioner comes across as, either, the victim of concerted efforts by counsel for other parties to mislead the courts in a manner prejudicial to the petitioner’s case or, alternatively, as an imaginative conspiracy theorist bent on spreading scandalous allegations against judges [1] and members of the Bar involved in his action for defamation and who try to bring the matter to trial. [ 3 ] Fortunately, in order to dispose of the application now before me, I do not have to determine which of these two descriptions best fits the facts.

[ 4 ] The motion must fail for at least two reasons. [ 5 ] First, it rests in part on the mistaken notion that, when a defendant desists from a judgment dismissing a plaintiff’s motion for an order to require production of certain documents by the defendant, this same defendant, by reason of his having so desisted, becomes subject to an obligation to produce the documents initially sought by the plaintiff in his motion.

This notion is plainly wrong and does not merit further consideration in an appeal from a judgment which treats it as wrong. [ 6 ] Second, to the extent that the judgment of November 14 ruled, or did not rule, on an alleged failure to comply with Rule 15 of the Rules of Practice of the Superior Court of Québec in Civil Matters , this judgment pertains, in essence, to issues of case management, which can be addressed and resolved by the coordinating judge, by a judge sitting in the practice division or, in due course, by the judge who will preside over the trial.

The defendants’ decision to contest the petitioner’s action orally may have procedural consequences which the Superior Court is in a far better position to manage than the Court of Appeal hearing an appeal from an interlocutory order of the Superior Court. [ 7 ] The motion is therefore dismissed with costs. THE HONOURABLE YVES-MARIE MORISSETTE, J.A.