2017 QCCA 1267, 2017 QCCA 1267

Olumide c. Attorney General of Quebec 2017 QCCA 1267 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL N° : 500-10-006436-172 (550-36-000021-178) DATE : August 28, 2017 PRESIDING: Mtre CATHERINE DUFOUR, Deputy Clerk ADE OLUMIDE APPELLANT – Plaintiff v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC RESPONDENT – Respondent JUDGMENT [ 1 ] I am seized with a Motion for Referral to the Court of Appeal for

Summary Determination filed by the respondent under

section 685 of the Criminal Code . [ 2 ] In February 2017, the appellant filed two applications for private prosecution against The Queen and The Quebec Superior Court (504 Cr.C .), in which he alleges that he was a victim of indictable offences committed by the Queen (sections 362 and 380 Cr. C .) and the Quebec Superior Court (sections 341, 21b) and 23 Cr.

C .). [ 3 ] On March 7 th 2017, Justice Rosemarie Millar of the Court of Quebec informed the appellant by letter that his two informations were not received for cause of lack of legal grounds as to the alleged defendants. [ 4 ] On March 24 th 2017, the appellant filed a Mandamus Application Record and Constitutional Question in Superior Court. [ 5 ] On May 10, 2017, Justice Carole Therrien of the Superior Court dismissed the application on the grounds that the Court was unable to point out the precise and specific grounds that would justify an intervention and that the appellant’s reasoning for an eventual conviction of the Queen and the Superior Court was unsustainable. [ 6 ] The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal of Justice Therrien’s judgment on May 24, 2017.

In his Notice of Appeal, the appellant asks the Court for the application of

section 507.1 Cr c . He also asks the Court to declare that

section 579 Cr.C . as well as provisions of the Judges Act and the Act respecting the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution are unconstitutional. Otherwise, he explains that there is a violation of the “ rule of law to self defence from ongoing crime” . Moreover, he affirms that judges or the Crown do not benefit from an immunity from criminal prosecution. [ 7 ]

Section 68 5 Cr.C . reads as follow:

(1) Where it appears to the registrar that a notice of appeal, which purports to be on a ground of appeal that involves a question of law alone, does not show a substantial ground of appeal, the registrar may refer the appeal to the court of appeal for

summary determination, and, where an appeal is referred under this section, the court of appeal may, if it considers that the appeal is frivolous or vexatious and can be determined without being adjourned for a full hearing, dismiss the appeal summarily, without calling on any person to attend the hearing or to appear for the respondent on the hearing. 685.

(1) Lorsqu’il apparaît au registraire qu’un avis d’appel d’une condamnation, donné comme reposant sur un motif d’appel qui comporte une simple question de droit, n’énonce pas un motif d’appel sérieux, le registraire peut renvoyer l’appel devant la cour d’appel en vue d’une décision

sommaire, et, lorsqu’un appel est renvoyé devant la cour d’appel en vertu du présent article, celle-ci peut, si elle considère l’appel comme futile ou vexatoire et susceptible d’être jugé sans qu’il soit nécessaire de l’ajourner pour une audition complète, rejeter

sommairement l’appel sans assigner de personnes à l’audition ou sans les y faire comparaître pour l’intimé. [ 8 ] In Duhamel c. R. [1] , the Court wrote the following regarding this provision: [25] D'autre part, le texte de l'

article 685 C.cr . commande que seul soit soumis au processus de rejet

sommaire l'appel fondé sur un moyen de droit dont le manque de sérieux est si flagrant qu'il ressort d'une simple lecture de l'avis d'appel et justifie par conséquent la Cour de juger « sans qu'il soit nécessaire de l'ajourner pour une audition complète » et « sans assigner de personnes à l'audition ou sans les y faire comparaître pour l'intimé ». Cette façon de faire est exorbitante du droit ordinaire et, de toute évidence, une application prudente et réservée de la disposition s'impose. Cependant, rien n'empêche la Cour de convoquer les parties avant de rejeter l'appel. [26] L'

article 685 C.cr . ne peut donc viser qu'un appel qui, à la face même du seul avis d'appel , est si incontestablement mal fondé qu'on peut le rejeter sans examiner le dossier d'appel. Les appels de ce genre seront rares et le présent pourvoi ne tombe pas dans cette catégorie, même si l'on pouvait, par hypothèse, estimer que ses chances de succès ne sont pas très élevées.

Vu la nature des moyens d'appel et celle des moyens de rejet, il est clair qu'on ne peut décider en l'espèce du pourvoi sans une revue du dossier et une analyse du jugement et du droit applicable, ce qui dépasse nettement le cadre restreint du mécanisme mis en place par l'article 685 C.cr. [2] Unofficial translation : [25] In addition, under s. 685 Cr.C ., only an appeal grounded on a question of law so flagrantly lacking in seriousness as to be obvious upon a mere reading of the notice of appeal may be subject to the

summary dismissal procedure. Accordingly, the

section empowers the Court to adjudicate "without being adjourned for a full hearing" and "without calling on any person to attend the hearing or to appear for the respondent on the hearing". This manner of proceeding departs from ordinary law, and a prudent and restrained application of this provision is of course necessary. Nothing prevents this Court, however, from convening the parties before dismissing the appeal. [26]

Section 685 Cr.C . can therefore be applied only to appeals that, on the face of the notice of appeal alone , are so indisputably unfounded that they may be dismissed without consideration of the appeal record. This type of appeal is rare. The present appeal does not fall within this category, even if one could, as a hypothesis, assess the chances of its success as being very low.

Given the nature of the grounds of appeal and the reasons for dismissal, it is clear that the present appeal cannot be decided without a review of the record and an analysis of the judgment and the applicable law, which clearly goes beyond the limited scope of the mechanism established in s. 685 Cr.C. [3] [ 9 ] Convinced that the Notice of Appeal does not show a substantial ground of appeal, the respondent has filed the present motion.

The respondent alleges that the grounds of appeal are vague, impossible to understand and that the appellant’s Notice of Appeal raises unfounded allegations against various state bodies as well as unsubstantiated constitutional challenges of many legislative provisions. [ 10 ] Applying

section 685 Cr.c ., I must determine whether the Notice of Appeal shows a substantial ground of appeal. [ 11 ] I have read the Notice of Appeal and the other documents filed by the appellant. The allegations set out in the Notice of Appeal are numerous and vague. In fact, it is difficult to specifically identify the grounds of appeal raised. The appellant’s arguments regarding the unconstitutionality of

section 579 Cr.C . as well as of provisions of the Judges Act and the Act respecting the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution seem, to me, unsustainable. Furthermore, the grounds pertaining to an alleged violation of the “ rule of law to self

defence from ongoing crime” are vague and nonspecific. Finally, the arguments concerning the absence of immunity of judges and the Crown in the present case seem to have no chance of success. [ 12 ] Having reviewed the Notice of Appeal, I am of the view that the appeal does not show a substantial ground of appeal and will therefore refer the appeal to a panel of the Court for

summary determination. [ 13 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED : [ 14 ] REFERS the appeal in file 500-10-006436-172 to the panel of the Court sitting on October 16, 2017 at 9h30 am, in courtroom Pierre-Basile-Mignault; [ 15 ] ORDERS the respondent to file three additional copies of her Motion and the documents attached to the Office of the Court, no later than October 5, 2017. Mtre Catherine Dufour , Deputy Clerk Mr. Ade Olumide In person Mtre Sandra Bonanno DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL AND PENAL PROSECUTIONS For the respondent Date of hearing: August 9, 2017