2018 QCCA 497, 2018 QCCA 497

Zhang c. R. 2018 QCCA 497 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-10-006635-187 (500-36-008723-176) (500-73-004254-153) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: March 29, 2018 THE HONOURABLE MANON SAVARD, J.A. PETITIONER YU MING ZHANG IN PERSON RESPONDENT COUNSEL HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Mtre GUILLAUME LEMAY (Service des poursuites pénales du Canada) DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment rendered on January 19, 2018 by the Honourable Mario Longpré of the Superior Court, District of Montreal. (Section 839 Cr.C. , 21 et seq. R.C.A.C.M. ) Clerk: Mihary Andrianaivo Courtroom: RC.18 HEARING

9:33 Calling of the roll. The petitioner Yu Ming Zhang is absent. Mtre Guillaume Lemay, Counsel for the respondent as well as Mr Duc Khaï To,interpreter for the petitioner, are present. Exchanges between the Judge, on one hand and Me Lemay and Mr To, on the otherhand.9:35 Recess.9:48 Resumption of the hearing. Mr Zhang is present.

Exchanges between the Judge and the parties.9:51 Submission by Mr Zhang assisted by Mr To.10:07 Submission by Mtre Lemay.10:13 Rebuttal by Mr Zhang assisted by Mr To.10:17 BY THE JUDGE : The judgment will be rendered this afternoon and sent to the partiesthrough appropriate means.10:19 Conclusion of the hearing.14:19 BY THE JUDGE: Judgment – see page 3.

Mihary AndrianaivoClerk BY THE JUDGE JUDGMENT [1] The applicant seeks leave to appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court (the Honourable Mario Longpré) which, on January19, 2018 (reasons re-transcribed on January 29, 2018), dismissed an application, filed pursuant to s. 815(2) Cr.C., to extend the time toappeal from the judgment of the Court of Quebec (Judge Guylaine Rivest) which declared him guilty and sentenced him. [2] The respondent contests this motion and essentially submits that the questions raised by the applicant are not “questions of lawalone” in the sense of s. 839 Cr.C. [3] It is well-established that leave to appeal pursuant to s. 839 Cr.C. is granted sparingly.

In Brassard c. R., Doyon J.A., writing forthe Court, summarized the factors applicable to a s. 839 Cr.C. motion: [TRANSLATION] On the other hand, the leave to appeal set out at s. 839(1) Cr.C. essentially concerns the substance of the grounds of appeal raised andrequires that the applicant demonstrate that the question of law being raised is sufficiently important or that it relates to specialcircumstances which justify granting leave to appeal or which require the intervention of the Court of Appeal: R. c. Huneault (1984), (QC CA), 17 C.C.C. (3d) 270 (C.A.

Que.) […] [4] In my view, the applicant’s motion raises neither a question of law that merits the attention of the Court nor specialcircumstances that would justify the intervention of this Court. The judge correctly identified the factors relevant to his analysis (R. c.Lamontagne, (QC CA), [1994] J.Q. no 1022 (C.A.), par.11), which are in no way controversial and concluded that theapplicant did not show any serious grounds of appeal. The requirements for leave to appeal to be granted, as established in Brassard c. R(supra, paragr. 3) are not met.

FOR THESE REASONS THE UNDERSIGNED: [5] DISMISSES the motion for leave to appeal.

MANON SAVARD , J.A.