Last June, we published a newsletter following the decision rendered in Michel Grenier v. Me Julie Charbonneau, Roger Picard and Conseil de discipline de l’Ordre des psychologues du Québec. This decision followed the filing by the Defendants of Motions to Dismiss, which were granted by the judge of the Superior court.
At the time the newsletter was published, the delay to appeal had not yet expired. Since the publication, Plaintiff appealed the Superior court’s decision.
Following the Superior Court’s dismissal of the Plaintiff’s Originating Judicial Application on the grounds of abuse under Article 51 of the Civil Code of Procedure, Mr. Grenier was required to seek permission from the Court of Appeal to proceed with an appeal. The Honourable Justice Christine Baudouin, J.C.A., presided over Mr. Grenier’s application.
In support of his application, Mr. Grenier contended that the Superior Court judge had overlooked evidence illustrating the respondents’ bias, bad faith, and malice. He further argued that the judge had erred by adopting positions that were inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s plan of argument, which outlined in detail the specific acts for which the respondents were accused.
Justice Baudouin noted that for leave to appeal to be granted, the appellant must demonstrate that the appeal presents a question worthy of the Court’s attention, specifically one involving a question of principle, a new issue, or a point of law where there is conflicting case law. The judge further noted that, in cases of alleged abuse, additional factors must be considered before permission to appeal is granted—namely, the appellant must show an apparent weakness in the judgment, one that could lead to a risk of injustice.
After analyzing the appellant’s arguments, Justice Baudouin concluded that the appellant did not meet the criteria for granting leave to appeal. According to Justice Baudouin “granting leave to appeal in this case would have the effect of perpetuating the abuse of process.”
Takeaway
Not all judgments give rise to an automatic right of appeal. When leave is required, the appellant must demonstrate that the appeal is necessary to remedy a potential injustice. This requirement is particularly stringent in cases involving abuse of process, where the appellant must also establish an apparent weakness in the judgment being challenged.
