2012 QCCA 1668, 2012 QCCA 1668
Opinion
Renshaw c. R. 2012 QCCA 1668 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-10-005190-127 ( 505-01-069552-079 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: September 10, 2012 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE BENOÎT MORIN, J.A. JULIE DUTIL, J.A. MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. PETITIONER ATTORNEY MARK RENSHAW Mtre Leonard Waxman WAXMAN DORVAL PERRON DEL NEGRO RESPONDENT ATTORNEY HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Mtre Daniel Royer Criminal and penal prosecuting attorney
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL CONVICTION ON QUESTIONS OF MIXED FACT AND LAW IN REVISION OF A DECISION REFUSING LEAVE TO APPEAL OF A JUDGE. PETITION FOR AN EXTENSION OF DELAYS TO GIVE NOTICE OF APPEAL AGAINST THE CONVICTION. Clerk: Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING Joint hearing of the motions in the following files: 500-10-005190-127 and 500-10-005191-125. 9 h 40 Beginning of the hearing. 9 h 40 Submission by Mtre Waxman.
Amendment by Mtre Waxman to his Motion in Revision, paragraph 6.10 at page 8, to substitute the name of Lanthier by the name Laurence Authier and to add for B that he didn't see any punches thrown "before the dog jumped". 10 h 10 Submission by Mtre Royer. 10 h 17 Reply by Mtre Waxman. 10 h 19 Recess 10 h 49 Resumption of the hearing. 10 h 49 By the Court: judgment – see next page. Robert Osadchuck Clerk BY THE COURT
JUDGMENT On the Motion for Extension of Delays: [ 1 ] The Court is of the opinion that even if the «Petition for an Extension of Delays to Give Notice of Appeal Against a Conviction of the Petitioner» is vague, it appears from the explanations given orally by Petitioner's Counsel that the appeal rests on the two following grounds, which raise questions of law: 1. Errors in law regarding sections 34 and 37 Cr.C. ; 2. Unreasonableness of the verdict. [ 2 ] Accordingly, those questions are appealable as of right, and considering the criteria set out in Lamontagne v.
R, J.E. 98-25 , the Petition is GRANTED . [ 3 ] The petitioner is AUTHORIZED to file a Notice of Appeal by September 25 th , 2012 at the latest. On the Motion in Revision of the Judgment of Justice Hilton: [ 4 ] The Court is of the opinion that Justice Hilton made no error in rendering his judgment of June 29, 2012 considering the grounds of appeal raised before him at that moment. FOR THOSE REASONS: [ 5 ] The Motion in Revision of that judgment is DISMISSED . BENOÎT MORIN, J.A. JULIE DUTIL, J.A. MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A.
Loading document…