2012 QCCA 1919, 2012 QCCA 1919

Bensoussan c. Order of Engineers of Quebec 2012 QCCA 1919 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-10-005123-128 ( 500-61-290002-105 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: October 30, 2012 THE HONOURABLE ALLAN R. HILTON, J.A. PETITIONER ATTORNEY SIMON BENSOUSSAN ABSENT RESPONDENT ATTORNEY ORDER OF ENGINEERS OF QUEBEC Mtre Pascal A. Pelletier (ABSENT) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT RENDERED ON FEBRUARY 13 AND 14, 2012 BY THE HON. JOHANNE WHITE OF THE QUEBEC COURT DISTRICT OF MONTREAL

Clerk: Annick Nguyen Court Room: ——- HEARING Continuation of October 26, 2012, hearing. Parties are advised that judgment will be rendered on the minutes of the hearing and their presence in Court is not required. Judgment – See page 3. Annick Nguyen Clerk JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Simon Bensoussan has been charged with six counts in the Court of Quebec pursuant to sections 22 and 26 of the Engineers Act [1] for falsely portraying himself as an engineer. He seeks leave to appeal a series of interlocutory judgments that were rendered during the pre-trial stage of the proceedings.

The various judgments for which leave is sought refused his request to have a legible copy of handwritten notes that were disclosed to him as part of the prosecution's pre-trial disclosure obligation, while others refused his request to obtain unredacted copies of documents that were completed by prosecution investigators. [ 2 ] In support of my jurisdiction to adjudicate his motion, Mr. Bensoussan invokes the first paragraph of

section 292 and

section 296 of the Code of Penal Procedure . [2] These provisions are to the following effect:

292. Il peut également en être appelé immédiatement d'une décision rendue en première instance ou en Cour supérieure qui statue sur une objection à la preuve fondée sur l'

article 308 du Code de procédure civile (chapitre C-25 ) ou sur l'

article 9 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne (chapitre C-12 ) ou qui statue sur le caractère confidentiel d'un renseignement que révèle une chose saisie. Cet appel a lieu avec la permission d'un juge de la Cour d'appel lorsque l'objection à la preuve a été accueillie ou lorsque le caractère confidentiel du renseignement a été déclaré. Le juge qui accorde cette permission ordonne alors la continuation ou la suspension de la poursuite en première instance ou en Cour supérieure, selon le cas.

L'appel a lieu de plein droit lorsque l'objection à la preuve a été rejetée ou lorsque le caractère non confidentiel du renseignement a été déclaré. Cet appel ne suspend pas la poursuite, mais le juge de première instance ou celui de la Cour supérieure, selon le cas, ne peut entendre la preuve visée par l'objection, ni permettre l'accès au renseignement, ni rendre jugement sur la poursuite tant que l'appel du jugement interlocutoire n'est pas décidé. L'appel est entendu par préférence à moins que le juge en chef n'en décide autrement. […] 296.

La demande de permission d'appeler doit être présentée par écrit dans les 30 jours du jugement porté en appel. Elle indique notamment les motifs de l'appel et les conclusions recherchées et elle est rédigée de façon concise et précise conformément aux règles de pratique. Une copie du jugement porté en appel doit être jointe à la demande. Sur demande écrite de l'appelant, la demande de permission peut être présentée dans tout autre délai fixé par un juge de la Cour d'appel même après l'expiration du délai de 30 jours. 292.

An interlocutory judgment rendered in first instance or in Superior Court which rules on an objection to the evidence based on

article 308 of the Code of Civil Procedure (chapter C-25 ) or

section 9 of the Charter of human rights and freedoms (chapter C-12 ) or which rules on the confidentiality of information disclosed through a thing seized may also be appealed immediately. Such appeal takes place with leave of a judge of the Court of Appeal, where the objection to the evidence has been admitted or where the confidentiality of the information has been declared. The judge who grants such leave shall then order the continuation or stay of proceedings in first instance or in Superior Court, as the case may be.

The appeal takes place by operation of law where the objection to the evidence has been denied or where the nonconfidentiality of the information has been declared. The appeal does not stay proceedings but the judge of first instance or of the Superior Court, as the case may be, cannot hear the evidence contemplated by the objection or permit access to the information or render judgment on the proceedings until the appeal from the interlocutory judgment is decided. The appeal is heard by preference, unless the chief justice decides otherwise. […] 296.

Application for leave to appeal must be presented in writing within 30 days from the appealed judgment. It must indicate, in particular, the grounds for the appeal and the conclusions sought and be drafted concisely and precisely in accordance with the rules of practice. A copy of the appealed judgment must be attached to the application. Upon the written application of the appellant, the application for leave to appeal may be presented within any other time fixed by a judge of the Court of Appeal, before or after the expiry of the period of 30 days. [ 3 ] Despite Mr.

Bensoussan's very carefully and thoroughly presented representations, which is all the more to his credit as he has no legal training, I have concluded that none of the circumstances mentioned give rise to the possibility of leave being granted. [ 4 ] First, I note that the request to obtain a legible version of handwritten notes of an investigator that the judge refused is not at all contemplated as being within the scope of the first paragraph of

section 292 C.P.P. [ 5 ] Second,

article 308 C.C.P . refers to the disclosure of information by "government officials". The prosecution investigator whose notes were redacted is not a government official for whom it would be necessary for a Minister or Deputy Minister to subscribe an affidavit. [ 6 ] Third,

section 9 of the Charter of human rights and freedoms [3] precludes the disclosure during judicial proceedings of information covered by professional secrecy, which is also not something to which prosecution investigators are subject. [ 7 ] Finally, the judgments of the Court of Quebec do not adjudicate anything related to the confidentiality of a thing seized. [ 8 ] Since appeals by their nature are statutory and must be grounded in a legislative provision, it is not open to a judge of this Court to authorize an appeal on a subject matter for which there is no such legislative foundation.

Such is the case with the judgments for which Mr. Bensoussan seeks leave to appeal. I am therefore obliged to dismiss his application for leave to appeal. [ 9 ] As is the case with criminal trials, where there are no interlocutory appeals, the impugned judgments in this case can be submitted to the appropriate appellate court for review in the event Mr. Bensoussan is found guilty of one or more of the offences for which he is charged. In such circumstances, it would be inopportune for me to comment on the merits of his proposed grounds of appeal to this Court.

[ 10 ] Counsel for the respondent requested that I dismiss Mr. Bensoussan's application with costs because of the multiple times the matter came on the roll for hearing and the number of times his application was amended. I will decline to do so, especially in light of the quality of Mr. Bensoussan's oral argument, which did not have a single one of the hallmarks of a vexatious pleader. FOR THESE REASONS: [ 11 ] The motion for leave to appeal is dismissed, without costs. ALLAN R. HILTON, J.A.