2016 QCCA 994, 2016 QCCA 994

Gavrina c. Capital BLF inc. 2016 QCCA 994 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL N o : 500-09-025998-162 (500-17-073206-123) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE : June 6, 2016 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS DOYON , J.A. NICHOLAS KASIRER , J.A. MARIE ST-PIERRE , J.A. APPELLANT ELENA GAVRINA In person RESPONDENTS COUNSEL CAPITAL B.L.F. INC. RIDGEWOOD SOCIÉTÉ EN COMMANDITE JAMES BOND Mtre SÉBASTIEN TISSERAND (Mercier Leduc, s.e.n.c.r.l.) On appeal from a judgment rendered on March 3 rd , 2016 by the Honourable Justice Marie-Claude Lalande of the Superior Court, District of Montreal.

DESCRIPTION : Application to dismiss the appeal (Articles 364 and 365 C.C.P.) Clerk : Robert Osadchuck Courtroom : Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 14:30 Commencement of the hearing. 14:31 Elena Gavrina asks for a postponement of the hearing. 14:32 Mtre Tisserand contests the request for postponement. 14:33 Reply by Elena Gavrina. 14:37 Recess. 14:38 Resumption of the hearing. 14:38 By the Court: The request to postpone the hearing is denied. 14:38 Submissions by Elena Gavrina. 14:45 Recess. 14:53 Resumption of the hearing. 14:53 By the Court: judgment – see page 3.

Robert Osadchuck Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The trial in the Superior Court extended over six days. The judgment under appeal – 204 paragraphs on 31 pages – is largely devoted to an evaluation of the contradictory evidence administered by the parties and the judge's conclusions on matters relating to the credibility of witnesses.

The judge made plain that she did not find the appellant to be a reliable witness. [ 2 ] Indeed, the declaration of appeal raises only matters that turn on credibility of witnesses and supposed errors of fact committed by the judge. [ 3 ] The declaration points to no errors that could justify this Court disturbing the judgment below. [ 4 ] The appellant's purpose is plainly to retry the case she lost in first instance.

This is not the function of a court of appeal. [ 5 ] We are unanimously of the view that the declaration of appeal discloses no ground that offers a reasonable prospect of success for the proposed appeal. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE COURT:

[ 6 ] GRANTS the motion to dismiss the appeal, with judicial costs; [ 7 ] DISMISSES the appeal, with judicial costs. FRANÇOIS DOYON, J.A. NICHOLAS KASIRER, J.A. MARIE ST-PIERRE, J.A.