2011 QCCA 902, 2011 QCCA 902

Manolakos c. R. Gauthier Couvreur inc. 2011 QCCA 902 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-020231-098 ( 500-22-136980-078 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: May 10, 2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MARC BEAUREGARD, J.A. JACQUES CHAMBERLAND, J.A. FRANÇOIS PELLETIER, J.A. APPELLANT(

S) ATTORNEY(

S) ANGELA MANOLAKOS In person RESPONDENT(

S) ATTORNEY(

S) R. GAUTHIER COUVREUR INC. Me Pierre Paquin DUNTON, RAINVILLE ATTORNEY(

S) On appeal from a judgment rendered on November 10, 2009 by the Honourable Madam Justice Julie Veilleux of the Quebec Court, District of Montreal. NATURE OF THE APPEAL : CONTRACT Clerk: MARC LEBLANC Court Room: PIERRE-BASILE-MIGNAULT HEARING 9 h 29 Beginning of the hearing. 9 h 29 Ms. Manolakos asks for a postponement. 9 h 32 Mtre Paquin opposes the granting of a postponement. 9 h 33 Response of Ms.

Manolakos. 9 h 35 Suspension of the hearing. 9 h 37 Resumption of the hearing. 9 h 37 The postponement is not granted. 9 h 37 Ms Manolakos is asking the permission to produce a document. 9 h 42 Mtre Paquin objects to the production of the document. 9 h 42 Suspension of the hearing. 9 h 43 Resumption of the hearing. The Court gives permission to Ms Manolakos to file the document. 9 h 44 Argument of Ms.

Manolakos. 10 h 14 Suspension of the hearing. 10 h 19 Resumption of the hearing. 10 h 19 Intervention of Mtre Paquin for respondent who is asking for its costs. 10 h 20 Judgment is rendered – see page 3. 10 h 21 The hearing is concluded. Marc Leblanc Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT

[ 1 ] Last March Appellant requested that the hearing of May 10 be postponed; [ 2 ] Given the nature of the case (an action for goods delivered and services rendered) and what appeared to be a dilatory measure, the Court refused to postpone the hearing; [ 3 ] At the beginning of the hearing of May 10, Appellant again asked the Court for a postponement of her appeal; [ 4 ] Again, given the nature of the case, the fact that the trial judge accepted the testimonies of the representative of Respondent and of the experts called by the Respondent and considering particularly that Appellant had not put before the Court the evidence adduced at trial, the Court once again dismissed the request for postponement, and heard the parties; [ 5 ] In fact, Appellant had prepared a new brief containing various arguments including some based on facts which could not be controlled given the lack of the transcript of the evidence; [ 6 ] In the circumstances, Appellant could not convince the Court that the trial judge erred in law or had manifestly erred in her findings of facts; [ 7 ] For these reasons, the Court dismisses the request for postponement, without costs, and dismisses the appeal, with costs.

MARC BEAUREGARD, J.A. JACQUES CHAMBERLAND, J.A. FRANÇOIS PELLETIER, J.A.