2016 QCCA 1406, 2016 QCCA 1406

Palazzo c. Standard Life Assurance Company of Canada 2016 QCCA 1406 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-026221-168 (500-17-066898-118) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: August 29, 2016 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE yves-marie morissette , J.A. guy gagnon , J.A. marie-josée hogue , J.A. PETITIONER COUNSEL JOSEPH PALAZZO Mtre ALAN M. STEIN (Tatner et associé

s) Mtre MARK E. WENER RESPONDENT COUNSEL THE STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA Mtre NATALIE BUISSIÈRE M tre SOPHIE TREMBLAY (Blake, Cassels & Graydon, s.e.n.c.r.l.) DESCRIPTION : Motion for an extension of the delay for an appeal and authorization of an appeal from a judgment rendered on January 15, 2016 by the Honourable Mr. Justice Louis Lacoursière of the Superior Court, District of Montreal (Article 363 of the New Code of Civil Procedure )

Clerk: Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 11:21 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. 11:21 Submissions by Mtre Stein. 11:53 Recess. 12:00 Resumption of the hearing. 12:00 Submissions by Mtre Bussière. 12:22 Reply by Mtre Stein. 12:23 Recess. 12:35 Resumption of the hearing. 12:35 By the Court: judgment – see page 3.

Robert Osadchuck Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT [ 1 ] While the reasons for which the petitioner seeks an extension of the time to file an appeal appear serious, and possibly valid, the central gist of the judgment which dismissed the petitioner's action on the ground that it was prescribed when it was commenced, was dealt with by the trial judge in a manner which was fully mindful of the petitioner's particular situation and which, if anything, showed on the part of the trial judge a certain willingness to err in favour of the petitioner’s

interpretation of prescription. [ 2 ] This said, in the Court's opinion, paragraphs 124 to 129 of the judgment provide a complete answer on the issue of prescription. As for the arguments pertaining to the petitioner's pension, they are essentially factual in nature and the judge’s findings in this regard would not be reversed in the absence of a palpable and overriding error.

No such error is apparent from the petitioner’s motion. [ 3 ] As the petitioner's motion fails to evince a ground which would entail that the appeal would stand a reasonable chance of success were it heard on its merits, the motion for extension must be dismissed. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 4 ] DISMISSES the motion for extension, with legal costs. yves-marie morissette, J.A. guy gagnon, J.A.

marie-josée hogue, J.A.