2011 QCCA 17, 2011 QCCA 17

A.M. c. Kliger 2011 QCCA 17 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OFMONTREAL No: 500-09-021058-102 (500-22-164961-099) DATE: January 6, 2011 IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HONOURABLE MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. A. M. PETITIONER / Respondent v. LILLIAN KLIGER RESPONDENT / Plaintiff JUDGMENT [1] The petitioner seeks leave to appeal the judgment of the Court of Quebec, Civil Division, district of Montreal (thehonourable Mr.

Justice Normand Amyot), dated September 8, 2010, condemning him to pay 7 567,56 $ to the respondent, with interestand the additional indemnity, for professional services rendered in connection with divorce proceedings between the petitioner, who wasthen represented by the respondent, and his estranged wife. [2] The respondent sued the petitioner for 16 160,18 $, but the trial judge, who concluded that she had not complied with s.3.08.04 of the Code of ethics of advocates (R.R.Q., c.

B-1, r.1), reduced the claim to 7 567,56 $. [3] The petitioner generally alleges that the trial judge ignored essential parts of the evidence, which he does not even mention inhis judgment, and that he generally misapprehended the nature of the issues in dispute. The petitioner, in fact, requests that the matter betried anew by the Court. * * [4] The petitioner's motion is governed by the second paragraph of

article 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure : 26. […] An appeal also lies, with leave of a judge of the Court of Appeal, when the matter at issue is one which ought to be submitted to theCourt of Appeal, particularly where, in the opinion of the judge, the matter at issue is a question of principle, a new issue or a question oflaw that has given rise to conflicting judicial precedents, […] (5) from any other final judgment of the Superior Court or the Court of Québec. [5] The petitioner's motion raises no question of principle and no question of general interest; it does not raise a new issue nor aquestion of law that has given rise to conflicting precedents.

The questions raised by the motion are questions of fact, which are limited inscope to the particular circumstances of the case between the parties. According to

article 26, second para., of the Code of CivilProcedure, these are not questions that ought to be submitted to the Court and I therefore must conclude that leave to appeal should notbe granted. [6] In addition, considering the applicable standard of appellate review as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada in Housen v.Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33 , [2002] 2 R.C.S. 235, and H. L. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 25 , [2005] 1R.C.S. 401, and applied consistently by our court, I believe that the appeal would have no reasonable chance of success.

As stated earlier,the petitioner is seeking a retrial of his case, rather that pinpointing any palpable and overriding error in the judgment. [7] Although the judgment could have been more detailed, the judge's reasons are sufficient and do not call for review. Indeed,it is not necessary for a trial judge to recount each and every piece of evidence put before him nor to comment on each element profferedas evidence. [8] Finally, considering the amount at stake, the rule of proportionality set out in

article 4.2 of the Code of Civil Proceduremilitates against granting leave to appeal. See for instance : Mondesir c. Asprakis, 2010 QCCA 1780, J.E. 2010-184; Montréal (Ville de)

c. Al Musawi , 2010 QCCA 1629 , J.E. 2010-1712; Émond c. Bisson , 2010 QCCA 638 , 2010EXP-1322; Kovak c. 9147-0179 Québec inc. , 2008 QCCA 1816 , J.E. 2008-1907; Société en commandite Les bois de Pierrefonds c. Domaine de parc Cloverdale , 2007 QCCA 292 , J.E. 2007-557 . [ 9 ] FOR THESE REASONS, I : [ 10 ] DISMISS the motion for leave to appeal (« requête du demandeur pour permission d'appeler »), without costs. MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. A. M. In person Lillian Kliger In person Date of hearing: December 20, 2010