Case information

Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Right to equality — Access to justice — Natural justice — Procedural fairness — Civil procedure — Appeals — Applicant’s action declared abusive — Applicant’s appeal dismissed on ground that he should first have obtained leave — Whether Court of Appeal erred in law by mechanically applying art. 30 para. 2(3) of Quebec’s Code of Civil Procedure — Whether Court of Appeal erred in law by failing to consider flagrant breach of right to be heard (audi alteram partem) at first instance — Whether this case raises question of national importance concerning scope of doctrine of implicit res judicata — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 15 — Civil Code of Québec, arts. 2848, 2898, 2925 — Code of Civil Procedure, arts. 30, 363.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

(PUBLICATION BAN)

Following their divorce, the parties (the applicant, A.C., and the respondent, M.P.) signed a contract in 2019 concerning the former family residence, which was included in the family patrimony. A judgment on relief corollary to the divorce was rendered in 2023. It ruled on the family patrimony, the partnership of acquests and the division of certain debts, and it established child support. In that judgment, the Superior Court declared the respondent, M.P., the sole owner of the residence. The applicant, A.C., then filed an originating application in which he sought the resolution of the 2019 contract — or the performance of the contract, which would have resulted in a payment of $232,835.79 from M.P. to him. In response, M.P. filed an application for dismissal and for a declaration of abuse.

The first instance judge allowed M.P.’s application for dismissal and for a declaration of abuse; he dismissed A.C.’s originating application, declared his action “abusive” and ordered that the advance registration made by A.C. against the residence be cancelled. The Court of Appeal dismissed A.C.’s appeal on the ground that the proposed appeal was subject to leave being granted first, because of the declaration of abuse in the judgment at first instance.