Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Heythem Bousnina, a member of Coopérative d'habitation Cloverdale, sought leave to appeal out of time a Superior Court judgment rendered on January 28, 2026 by Justice Bernard Synnott.
• Permission to appeal was required because the appellant's claims had been dismissed as abusive under Article 30, paragraph 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and also because the underlying claims were applications for judicial review under Article 30, paragraph 2(5).
• Leave to appeal was denied as the appellant raised no question of principle, novel question, or question of law subject to conflicting jurisprudence, as required under Article 30, paragraph 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
• Challenging the vexatious litigant declaration, the appellant argued the trial judge erred by considering time-barred prior conduct, allowing the trial to be diverted to the vexatious litigant issue, and breaching his right to procedural fairness.
• The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's vexatious litigant finding, as the appellant failed to identify any such error.
• Despite rejecting the appeal entirely, the Court declined to declare the appellant a vexatious litigant at the appellate level, finding his conduct in the appeal proceedings did not justify that conclusion.

Facts of the case

Heythem Bousnina, a member of Coopérative d'habitation Cloverdale, brought two applications for judicial review challenging decisions made by the cooperative's board of directors. The matter was heard before Justice Bernard Synnott of the Quebec Superior Court, Montreal district. In a judgment rendered on January 28, 2026 (Bousnina c. Coopérative d'habitation Cloverdale, 2026 QCCS 213), Justice Synnott dismissed both judicial review applications, declared them abusive, granted the cooperative's counterclaim and its motion to dismiss for abuse, ordered Bousnina to reimburse the cooperative $114,628.87 in extrajudicial fees, and declared him a vexatious litigant. Bousnina subsequently sought leave to appeal that judgment out of time before the Quebec Court of Appeal.

Procedural and statutory provisions at issue

The case turned on the interpretation and application of several provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.p.c.). Under Article 30, paragraph 2(3), leave to appeal is required where the underlying claim was dismissed for being abusive. Article 30, paragraph 2(5) separately requires leave where the underlying proceeding was an application for judicial review — a requirement that applied independently on the facts of this case. Article 30, paragraph 3 sets the threshold for granting leave: the question at issue must be one that ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal, notably because it raises a question of principle, a novel question, or a question of law subject to conflicting jurisprudence. The cooperative also relied on Article 365 C.p.c. in bringing its motion to dismiss the appeal and to have the appellant declared a vexatious litigant at the appellate level.

Reasoning and analysis

The Court of Appeal, composed of Justices Guy Gagnon, Peter Kalichman, and Christian Immer, first confirmed that leave to appeal was required, agreeing with the cooperative except on the question of the vexatious litigant declaration. On that declaration alone, the Court found the appellant had a right of appeal as of right, because the declaration was not merely a consequence of abusive procedure in the present file — it examined the appellant's conduct across multiple proceedings and restricted his right to file claims before the Superior Court and any court under its supervisory jurisdiction.

Turning to whether leave to appeal should be granted, the Court found the appellant raised no question meeting the Article 30, paragraph 3 threshold. His notice of appeal and late leave application identified no specific errors in the trial judgment; rather, he largely repeated the same arguments he had raised before the Superior Court and asserted the judge erred simply by not agreeing with his position. The Court found no apparent weakness in the judgment that would justify granting leave to prevent an injustice, citing Gestion ITR inc. c. Intact Compagnie d'assurance, 2024 QCCA 398, paragraph 70.

On the vexatious litigant declaration, the Court noted that the applicable standard of intervention is stringent: absent a palpable and overriding error, the Court of Appeal will not intervene, citing Fortin c. Ville de Lévis, 2018 QCCA 255, paragraph 8, and P.E. c. G.V., 2021 QCCA 445, paragraph 7. The appellant argued the trial judge erred by: (i) considering evidence of conduct predating the present file that was now prescribed; (ii) allowing the trial to be diverted from the judicial review applications to the vexatious litigant question; and (iii) breaching his right to procedural fairness by ruling on vexatious litigant status without giving him an opportunity to respond. The Court rejected each ground. It found the trial judge had correctly identified the legal framework for assessing vexatious litigant status and applied it to the available evidence, including proceedings the appellant had brought before other courts. The Court also found the appellant had not been deprived of his right to contest the matter and that the judge did not rely on inappropriate evidence. Because the appellant identified no error that could be characterized as palpable and overriding, his appeal against the vexatious litigant declaration had no reasonable chance of success.

The Court then addressed whether the appeal itself was abusive, as the cooperative had argued. The Court held it was not: the appellant had a right of appeal as of right against the vexatious litigant declaration, and the mere absence of a reasonable chance of success does not render grounds of appeal abusive. Finally, the Court declined to declare the appellant a vexatious litigant at the appellate level, finding that his conduct in the appeal proceedings did not meet the threshold for such a declaration.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal out of time, partially granted the cooperative's motion to dismiss solely for the purpose of rejecting the appeal against the vexatious litigant declaration, and dismissed that appeal on the merits. The appeal was rejected in its entirety, with costs awarded against the appellant. Coopérative d'habitation Cloverdale was the successful party at the appellate level. The cooperative's separate request for $5,643.84 in extrajudicial appellate fees and its request that the appellant be declared a vexatious litigant on appeal were both denied. No specific monetary amount was ordered by the Court of Appeal beyond the costs award; the exact quantum of appellate costs was not specified in the decision.