2020 QCCA 1142, 2020 QCCA 1142

Droit de la famille — 201311 2020 QCCA 1142 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-029051-208 ( 500-12-309265-118 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: September 9, 2020 THE HONOURABLE GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE, J.A. Applicant S. H. Unrepresented By videoconference Respondent Counsel A. Ha. Mtre Muriel Librati ( Teitelbaum Librati ) By videoconference DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment rendered in the course of the proceeding on July 24 , 2020 by the Honourable Suzanne Courchesne of the Superior Court , District of Montreal (Art. 31 C.C.P. ).

Clerk at the hearing : Mélahelle Sicotte Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING 9:58 Commencement of the hearing. Discussion between the judge and Mrs. H.. 10:04 Submissions by Mrs. H.. 10:07 Submissions by Mtre Librati and offer to review the extent of the documents that were referred to in the judgment at first instance as having been “already provided” in relation to items 1b), 1c), 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 founds in Annex A of

Schedule 4. 10:10 Comments by the judge regarding the appropriate forum for case management.

10:13 Reply by Mrs. H.. Discussion between the judge and Mrs. H. considering the offer of Mtre Librati to meet with her at her convenience (in person at her office or by videoconference) with a view to properly identifying, for her benefit, the documents which were “already provided” according to the judgment at first instance and can be found either in the Superior Court record or in the parties’ respective files. 10:16 Reply by Mtre Librati. 10:20 Discussion between the judge and Mrs. H. seeking her response to Mtre Librati’s offer. Acceptance of Mrs.

H. to participle in the suggested meeting. 10:23 Discussion between the judge and Mtre Librati and undertaking on her part to submit to case management in Superior Court any future and new debate that may arise in relation to the documents which were requested as items 1b), 1c), 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, in the event that the parties are unable to locate same either in the Court record or in their own files. Acquiescence to same by Mrs. H.. BY THE JUDGE : Judgment – See page 3. 10:27 Conclusion of the hearing.

Mélahelle Sicotte, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Applicant seeks leave to appeal a judgment rendered in the course of a proceeding on July 24, 2020 by the Superior Court, District of Montreal (the Honourable Madam Justice Suzanne Courchesne) on case management measures in the context of an application to annul spousal support. [ 2 ] She claims that the judge erred in fact and in law when she determined that some financial documents that had been requested had already been provided.

She argues that the judgment causes her irremediable injury because it unfairly and inappropriately deprives her of access to reasonable disclosure of the Respondent’s financial information. [ 3 ] The Application contains serious accusations of bias and partiality on the part of the judge of first instance as a result of her having “inappropriately and repeatedly deferred and capitulated to the Respondent’s counsel’s misrepresentations that certain documents had already been provided”.

She urges the undersigned to go through the documents allegedly provided in order to appreciate the discrepancies between the documents requested and those provided. [ 4 ] The Applicant also complains about the “daunting battle that self-represented litigants must face”, as she claims that “there seems to exist in the Superior Court a palpable undercurrent of what can fairly be characterized as a thinly veiled contempt” towards self- represented litigants. [ 5 ] In response to these claims and despite the numerous accusations made against her in the Application, the Respondent’s attorney has offered to help the Applicant reconcile the documents that have been provided so far or that are available in the Court record, by meeting with her at her convenience in person or virtually to review same.

She has also undertaken to provide any of those documents which were requested and are still missing from the Applicant’s file, despite being identified in the judgment at first instance as “having been provided”. [ 6 ] Given the offer made by the Respondent’s attorney and the Applicant’s acceptance to attend the suggested meeting, there is no basis to grant leave to appeal the case management measures.

Such leave would be contrary to the interest of justice and to the rules of proportionality, and would not solve the parties’ difficulties regarding the exchange of financial information in order to move the matter forward.

THEREFORE, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 7 ] ACKNOWLEDGES the parties’ undertaking to meet (in person at the office of the Respondent’s attorney or by videoconference) in order to allow the Respondent’s attorney to properly identify, for the benefit of the Applicant, the documents that were requested and “already provided” by the Respondent according to the judgment at first instance under items 1b), 1c), 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 and can either be found in the Superior Court record or in the parties’ respective files, and in the event that the documents have not been provided, to provide a copy of same; [ 8 ] ACKNOWLEDGES the parties’ undertaking to submit to case management in Superior Court in the event that an additional debate should arise in relation to the documents which were requested as items 1b), 1c), 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, should the parties be unable to locate same either in the Court record or in their own files; [ 9 ] ORDERS the parties to comply therewith; [ 10 ] DISMISSES the application for leave to appeal the case management measures ordered by judgment rendered on July 24, 2020, by Madam Justice Suzanne Courchesne of the Superior Court of Montreal;

[ 11 ] THE WHOLE , without legal costs in view of

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