Tibilla c. Bank of Montreal 2021 QCCA 1618 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-029623-212 ( 500-17-110433-193 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: October 25, 2021 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. STEPHEN W. HAMILTON, J.A. GUY COURNOYER, J.A. APPELLANT MOHAMMED TIBILLA present in person and Unrepresented RESPONDENT COUNSEL BANK of montreal Mtre KARINE LACOMBE-JOSEPH (by videoconference) ( Tremblay Avocats ) On appeal from a judgment rendered on July 5, 2021 by the Honourable Michel A. Pinsonnault of the Superior Court , District of Montreal .

DESCRIPTION: Application to dismiss an appeal (Article 365 C.C.P .) Clerk at the hearing : Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 12:01 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel and parties. 12:02 Mtre Lacombe-Joseph has nothing to add to her application. 12:02 Submissions by Mr. Presmy. 12:06 Representations by Mtre Lacombe-Joseph. 12:07 Submissions of Mr. Tibilla.

12:18 Suspension of the hearing. 12:25 Resumption of the hearing. 12:25 By the Court: judgment – see page 3. Robert Osadchuck, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] It is clear from the judgment of the Superior Court that despite any dispute over the loan defaults prior to April 2019, the term of Appellant’s hypothecary loan with Respondent matured on June 1, 2020. It remained unpaid.

As such, the judge was correct to order the sale of Appellant’s immoveable property hypothecated to secure the loan. [ 2 ] After the judgment, Appellant sent payment to Respondent’s attorney, who informs us that despite the payment, there is still a balance unpaid at July 19, 2021 of $4,687.60 comprised of legal costs and expenses for safekeeping of the hypothecated property. [ 3 ] The dismissal of the cross-demand in damages is based on the evidence produced or in certain measure not adduced before the trial judge so that the appeal of his findings would have no reasonable chance of success. [ 4 ] Given our observations above, the appeal should be dismissed.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 5 ] GRANTS Respondent’s “Requête en rejet d’appel”; [ 6 ] DISMISSES the appeal; [ 7 ] THE WHOLE without legal costs in the circumstances. MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. STEPHEN W. HAMILTON, J.A. GUY COURNOYER, J.A.