2012 QCCA 2140, 2012 QCCA 2140

Liu c. McGill University 2012 QCCA 2140 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-022352-124, 500-09-022493-126, 500-09-022636-120 ( 500-17-066381-115, 500-17-068963-118 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: November 26, 2012 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE NICOLE DUVAL HESLER, C.J.Q. PAUL VÉZINA, J.A. DENIS JACQUES, J.A. (AD HOC) PETITIONER JISHENG LIU In person RESPONDENT (500-09-022352-124, 500-09-022493-126) ATTORNEY McGILL UNIVERSITY Mtre Rachel Solyom McCARTHY TÉTRAULT RESPONDENT (500-09-022636-120) ATTORNEY

McGILL UNIVERSITY NON-ACADEMIC CERTIFIED ASSOCIATION (MUNACA) Mtre Sibel Ataogul (absent) MELANÇON MARCEAU GRENIER SCIORTINO Motion in revocation of judgement of the 14 th of September 2012 (files 500-09-022352-124 and 500-09-022493-126). Motion for restoration of appeal (file 500-09-022636-120). Clerk: Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 10 h 13 Beginning of the hearing. 10 h 13 Mtre Ataogul is absent.

Joint hearing of the motion for restoration of appeal in the file 500-09-022636-120 and the motion in revocation of judgment of September 14, 2012 in the files 500-09-022352-124 and 500-09- 022493-126. 10 h 13 Submission by Mr. Liu on the motion for restoration of appeal. 10 h 26 Submission by Mr. Liu. Mr. Liu produces a motion to suspend the proceedings of November 26, 2012 (re: motion in revocation). 10 h 41 Submission by Mtre Solyom. 10 h 46 Submission by Mr. Liu on the motion for revocation. 11 h 05 Recess. 11 h 30 Resumption of the hearing. 11 h 30 Submission by Mr.

Liu. 11 h 36 Recess. 11 h 42 Resumption of the hearing. 11 h 42 By the Court: judgment – see next page. Robert Osadchuck Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT

[ 1 ] The Petitioner is asking the Court to revive his appeal, that was declared abandoned due to his failure to file his factum within the extended delay granted to him, and to revoke a judgment of the Court dated September 14, 2012 declaring him a quarrelsome litigant. At the hearing, he produced a Motion to Suspend his own Motion to revoke the September 14 judgment because he has filed an application for leave to appeal various judgments of the Court before the Supreme Court of Canada.

Nevertheless, the Court heard him on his Motion in revocation. [ 2 ] The Petitioner says that he was prevented from presenting his contestation because he was hospitalized at the time of the hearing on the Motion to have him declared a quarrelsome litigant. The same reason is invoked to justify his failure to produce his factum, which is still not ready for filing. [ 3 ] However, by letter of the Chief Justice of the Court dated October 30, 2012, the Petitioner was duly advised that he would have to be ready to argue the issue of his being a quarrelsome litigant.

His argument at the hearing on that point has been that should he obtain leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and be successful before that Court, that would demonstrate that he is not abusing the court system. [ 4 ] The Petitioner was served with the Motion above referred to in person.

The members of the Court that heard it concluded that a case for quarrelsomeness was made on the face of the file (par. 8). [ 5 ] Indeed, the Petitioner is engaged in a pattern of appeals to higher courts and Motions to recuse the various judges before whom he appears or to revoke their judgments which is again demonstrated by the proceedings before us.

The Petitioner's position is that the courts are compelling him to institute proceedings because they pronounce erroneous, mistaken decisions. [ 6 ] The Petitioner raises no arguments that would justify granting his Motions on their merit. [ 7 ] For these reasons, the Court DISMISSES the Motion in Revocation of the Judgment of the 14th of September and the Motion for Restoration of Appeal, without costs in view of Respondent's renunciation to same. NICOLE DUVAL HESLER, C.J.Q. PAUL VÉZINA, J.A. DENIS JACQUES, J.A. (AD HOC)