R.S. c. T.M. 2017 QCCA 709 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-026747-170 (500-17-093579-160, 500-17-092232-167) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: May 1, 2017 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE julie dutil , J.A. martin vauclair , J.A. mark schrager , J.A. APPLICANT R. S. IN PERSON RESPONDENT COUNSEL T. M. Mtre FRANÇOIS BEAUVAIS (François Beauvais, Avocat) IMPLEADED PARTIES COUNSEL S. P. NATIONAL BANK OF CANADA A. S. M. D. PUBLIC CURATOR OF THE PROVINCE OF QUEBEC

DESCRIPTION : Application for leave to appeal after the expiry of time limit from a judgment rendered on February 13, 2017 by the Honourable Marie-Claude Armstrong from the Superior Court, District of Montreal (Articles 357 and 363 C.C.P .) Clerk: Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 12:18 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. 12:18 Submissions by Mr. S.. 12:35 Submissions by Mtre Beauvais. 12:41 Submissions by Mr. S. 12:47 Recess. 12:53 Resumption of the hearing. 12:53 By the Court: judgment – see page 3.

Robert Osadchuck Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Applicant seeks to appeal the judgment of the Superior Court, District of Montreal (The Honourable Marie-Claude Armstrong) of February 13, 2017. The judgment dismissed Applicant’s motion to oppose an inventory and to disqualify counsel. [ 2 ] Since Applicant’s proceeding was dismissed and declared abusive, leave to appeal is required in virtue of Article 30 (3) C.C.P . [ 3 ] The appeal was filed beyond the legal delays, and Applicant requests that the delays be extended. Aside from delays, leave may only be granted where, according to

Article 30 C.C.P ., we are satisfied “that the matter at issue is one that should be submitted to the Court, for example, because it involves a question of principle, a new issue or an issue of law that has given rise to conflicting judicial decisions”. [ 4 ] No such ground is alleged in the motion, which contains only a long list of alleged errors, but without saying why these are matters which should be submitted to the Court of Appeal. [ 5 ] Moreover, no ground with respect to the motion seeking disqualification of counsel is raised before us. [ 6 ] Accordingly, leave cannot be granted. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 7 ] DISMISSES the application, with legal costs.

JULIE DUTIL, J.A. MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.A. MARK SCHRAGER, J.A.