2022 QCCA 1292, 2022 QCCA 1292

Droit de la famille — 221594 2022 QCCA 1292 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-029889-227 ( 500-04-070751-178 ) MINUTES OF HEARING WARNING : Disclosure and circulation prohibited: The Code of Civil Procedure (“ C.C.P .”) provides that, except as authorized by the court, no person shall disclose or circulate any information that would allow a party or a child whose interests are at stake in a proceeding in a family matter to be identified (arts. 15 and 16 C.C.P .). DATE: September 23, 2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.A. GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE, J.A.

BENOÎT MOORE, J.A. APPELLANT F. H. PRESENT AND Unrepresented RESPONDENT J. A. PRESENT AND Unrepresented IMPLEADED PARTY DIRECTOR YOUTH PROTECTION ABSENT AND UNREPRESENTED On appeal from a judgment rendered on December 31, 2021 by the Honourable Guylène Beaugé of the Superior Court , District of Montreal . NATURE OF THE APPEAL: Family – Judgment r endered in the course of a proceeding – Safeguard order dismissed – Vexatious litigant not authorized to appear. Clerk at the hearing : Lesly Ramos Courtroom: Antonio-Lamer

HEARING 9:39 Commencement of the hearing. Comment by the Court. 9:41 Submissions by Mr. H.. 9:51 Recess of the hearing. 9:59 Resumption of the hearing. The Court announces that it will be not necessary to hear submissions from Mrs. A.. 10:01 BY THE COURT: Judgment – see page 3. 10:02 Conclusion of the hearing.

Lesly Ramos, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT WARNING : Disclosure and circulation prohibited: The Code of Civil Procedure (“ C.C.P .”) provides that, except as authorized by the court, no person shall disclose or circulate any information that would allow a party or a child whose interests are at stake in a proceeding in a family matter to be identified (arts. 15 and 16 C.C.P .). [ 1 ] The Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal of a judgment of the Superior Court (Beaugé J.) on December 31, 2021 [the Beaugé judgment].

The judgment dismissed his Application for a Safeguard Order whereby the Appellant sought temporary custody of the parties’ two children (aged 9 and 6). [ 2 ] In dismissing the Application, the Superior Court judge considered that she had no jurisdiction over the matter, given the judgment rendered by the Court of Québec, Youth Division on May 18, 2021, that entrusted the Respondent with the custody of the two children for a period of one year [the Youth Court decision].

She also found that the Appellant had failed to obtain prior authorization from the Chief Justice or Deputy Chief Justice of the Superior Court to file an application relating to the children despite the judgment rendered by the Honorable Justice Eva Petras, on August 13, 2019, which declared him a vexatious litigant and prohibited the filing of such applications without prior authorization [the Petras judgment]. [ 3 ] On January 18, 2022, the Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal.

He did not file an Application for Leave to Appeal. [ 4 ] On March 4, 2022, Me Catherine Dufour, Assistant Legal Coordinator of the Court, although she was not required to do so, wrote to the parties suggesting that obtaining leave to appeal in accordance with

article 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure might be required under the circumstances given the nature of the Beaugé judgment. [ 5 ] On May 11, 2022, the Respondent noted in her written submissions that prior leave had not been sought. At that point, less than six months had elapsed since the Beaugé judgment had been rendered. However, the Appellant took no measures to seek permission to appeal outside the prescribed delay in accordance with

article 363 of the Code of Civil Procedure . [ 6 ] On August 4, 2022, the Court alerted the parties to the panel’s conclusion that the appeal was not properly introduced and as such, given that more than 6 months had elapsed since the judgment was rendered, it was impossible for the Court to grant leave to appeal outside the delay under

article 363 of the Code of Civil Procedure . [ 7 ] In that letter, the Appellant was invited to provide observations regarding this irregularity, which he did on August 12, 2022. However, these observations afford no relief to the Appellant. The Court disagrees with his contention that the Court could, by virtue of its inherent powers under

article 49 of the Code of Civil Procedure , ignore the strict time limit stipulated in

article 363 of the Code of Civil Procedure and allow the appeal to proceed despite the fact that it was not properly introduced. [ 8 ] That being said, even if the Appellant had sought permission within the prescribed delay or had asked the Court to extend the delay before July 1, 2022, within six months of the date of the judgment under appeal, in compliance with

article 363 of the Code of Civil Procedure , such permission would nevertheless not have been granted because the appeal has no reasonable chance of success for several compelling reasons including: firstly, following the Petras judgment, the Appellant was precluded from bringing his Application for a Safeguard Order related to custody without obtaining prior permission from the Chief Justice or Deputy Justice of the Superior Court, which he failed to do; secondly, the Superior Court had no jurisdiction over custody in light of the Youth Court decision that was still in force at the time of the hearing of the Application for a Safeguard Order; and, thirdly, the appeal has become moot given the

temporary nature of the safeguard order being sought. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 9 ] DISMISSES the appeal given that it was improperly introduced; [ 10 ] WITHOUT legal costs given the nature of the proceeding. MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.A. GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE, J.A. BENOÎT MOORE, J.A.