2022 QCCA 1634, 2022 QCCA 1634

Droit de la famille — 222102 2022 QCCA 1634 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-030025-225 ( 500-12-342965-195 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: November 28, 2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SIMON RUEL, J.A. BENOÎT MOORE, J.A. PETER KALICHMAN, J.A. WARNING : Disclosure and circulation prohibited: The Code of Civil Procedure (“ C.C.P .”) provides that, except as authorized by the court, no person shall disclose or circulate any information that would allow a party or a child whose interests are at stake in a proceeding in a family matter to be identified (arts. 15 and 16 C.C.P .).

APPELLANT S. K. Unrepresented RESPONDENT COUNSEL B. Z. Mtre Roxane Charpentier ( Avocats Juripop ) By videoconference DESCRIPTION: Application to revoke the judgment (article 345 C.C.P .). Clerk at the hearing : René Gutknecht Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 12:35 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of the parties. 12:36 Submissions by Mr. K.. 12:44 Discussion between the Court and Mr. K. 12:45 Mr. K. resumes his submissions. 12:48 Recess of the hearing. 12:50 Resumption of the hearing. The Court informs Mtre.

Charpentier that it would not be necessary to hear her submissions. 12:51 BY THE COURT: Judgment – see page 4. 12:52 Conclusion of the hearing.

René Gutknecht, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Superior Court rendered a divorce judgement on March 24, 2022. The Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. On October 7, 2022, a panel of this Court granted the Respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal. The Court wrote: [2] The judgment, which includes 309 paragraphs of reasons, provides a detailed account of the parties’ tumultuous relationship and the hold that Appellant had over Respondent and their children during the marriage.

In establishing the parties’ income and the value and origin of assets, the judge made clear findings of credibility which, as a whole, shows she preferred Appellant’s version of events over that of Respondent. [3] While Appellant’s notice of appeal claims to expound on so-called errors of law and palpable and overriding errors of fact, it reads more as a convoluted litany of grievances about the conduct of the trial, how the divorce was “fabricated” against him and how the judge rendered a decision based on a “figment of [her] imagination” while overlooking certain facts which Appellant submits were favourable to his position. [4] Whatever may be said about the true characterization of the issues raised in the notice of appeal, it is abundantly clear that Appellant is inviting the Court to re-examine the evidence as a whole and substitute its own opinion for that of the trial judge in the hopes of a different outcome.

In so doing, Appellant not only fails to consider this Court’s function – which is not to retry cases – but also fails to identify any error that would justify disturbing the judge’s conclusions. [5] At the hearing, Appellant declared that his grounds of appeal would now be limited to errors made in the calculation of child and spousal support as well as the partition of the partnership of acquests, but again failed to identify any such error. [6] In short, the Court agrees with Respondent that the appeal shows no reasonable chance of success and must therefore be dismissed.

Moreover, despite this being a family matter, Appellant’s conduct justifies that legal costs be borne by Appellant alone, just as they were in first instance. [1] [ 2 ] The Petitioner now presents a motion to revoke this judgment. He pleads that the judgement is based on invalid consent, because his former attorney pleaded some arguments without his knowledge and that he was precluded from intervening in the course of the hearing. He also argues that the Court summarily dismissed his motion to reject the Respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal, which would be a breach of fairness.

The Petitioner states that the judgement of this Court is “biased, partial, unfair and letting it stand would tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute”. [ 3 ] The Petitioner’s motion to revoke the judgment of this Court should be dismissed. None of the conditions of

article 345 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the revocation of judgements are met in this case. [ 4 ] The Petitioner’s allegations are unsubstantiated and not supported by affidavit evidence. He attacks the competence of his former counsel, but counsel has not been called to respond. As to the Petitioner’s motion to reject the Respondent motion, articles 41 and 74 of the Regulations of the Court of Appeal of Quebec in Civil Matters [2] provide that an application to dismiss an appeal shall be contested orally, which was done in this case.

Procedural fairness was afforded to the Petitioner before this Court, and his appeal was dismissed as having no reasonable chance of success. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 5 ] DISMISSES the motion to revoke the judgment, without costs. SIMON RUEL, J.A. BENOÎT MOORE, J.A. PETER KALICHMAN, J.A.