2019 QCCA 217, 2019 QCCA 217

Daoud c. Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec 2019 QCCA 217 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-10-006460-172 (500-36-007955-167) (500-61-360047-139) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: February 8, 2019 THE HONOURABLE NICHOLAS KASIRER, J.A. PETITIONER MOUNIR MIKHAIL DAOUD IN PERSON RESPONDENTS COUNSEL ORDRE DES INGÉNIEURS DU QUÉBEC Mtre PATRICK MARCOUX ( Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec) HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ABSENT DESCRIPTION: Application of the Respondent Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec for the holding of a conference meeting.

Application for leave to appeal from judgments rendered respectively on December 11, 2015 (on the verdict) and on February 18, 2016 (on the sentence) by the Honourable Justice Suzanne Bousquet of the Quebec Court, District of Montreal. (Section 291 C.P.P. )

Clerk: Lory Beauregard Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING 9:40 Commencement of the hearing. Exchanges between the judge and the parties. Recess of the hearing. 9:44 Resumption of the hearing. Exchanges between the Judge, Mr. Daoud and Mtre Marcoux. Since the application for leave to appeal is heard today, Mtre Marcoux submits that the application for the holding of a conference meeting is not applicable anymore. 9:45 Submissions by Mr. Daoud. 9:53 Mr. Daoud submits to the judge a copy of a document, which is taken under reserve. 10:01 Mr.

Daoud submits a copy of his authorities. 10:11 Submissions by Mtre Marcoux. 10:23 Rebuttal by Mr. Daoud. 10:26 The judgment will be rendered approximately at 4:00 p.m. The parties’ attendance is not required. Recess of the hearing. 4:00 Resumption of the hearing. BY THE JUDGE : Judgment – see page 3. End of the hearing.

Lory Beauregard Clerk BY THE JUDGE JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Without the assistance of a lawyer, Mounir Daoud asks for leave to appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, District of Montreal (the Honourable Robert Mongeon presiding), rendered May 17, 2017, which dismissed his appeal from a conviction and sentence relating to the offences of wrongly assuming the title of engineer and of making use of the abbreviation “ing.” without the right to do so, in violation of subs. 22(2) of the Engineers Act and s. 32 of the Professional Code .

The circumstances of the offence concerned the use of the title by Mr Daoud in a document he sent to the Montreal police department in connection with a complaint. [ 2 ] Bousquet J., sitting as a justice of the peace in the Court of Quebec, declared Mr. Daoud guilty as charged at trial after dismissing his motion for a stay of proceedings based on an alleged abuse of process, and after rejecting of the various defences raised on the merits. At sentence, the judge fined Mr.

Daoud $3,000, plus costs. [ 3 ] On appeal, Mongeon, J. granted a motion to dismiss the appeal brought by the respondent on the grounds that Mr. Daoud’s appeals against the conviction and the sentence were frivolous and clearly without any basis in fact or law. [ 4 ] Mr. Daoud filed a motion for leave to appeal under s. 291 of the Code of Penal Procedure in this Court on June 20, 2017. [ 5 ] The motion as filed was incomplete and struck from the appeal roll pending, in particular, the preparation of transcripts of the judgment and the hearing in the Superior Court.

The file remained essentially inactive for a period of 20 months. The respondent filed a motion for case management on appeal. Mr. Daoud subsequently obtained the transcripts of the hearing and now seeks to proceed with his motion for leave as originally filed in 2017.

[ 6 ] At the hearing before me, the parties agreed to proceed on that basis. The respondent withdrew its motion for case management. *** [ 7 ] Mr Daoud raises a myriad of grounds for appeal. He argues that the trial judge was in conflict of interest, because, he says, prior to becoming a justice of the peace, the judge worked in a position of authority in the legal department of the Montreal police force.

He further complains is that Mongeon J. erred in failing to note that certain documents filed by the lawyer representing the respondent were “fake and forged”, and were produced with the intention to deceive the court. Mr. Daoud adds that the Superior Court further failed to note that he had no intention to commit the offence, and that when he identified himself with the abbreviation “ing.” in his dealings with the police he did not do so on a matter pertaining to engineering. He states further that the “SPVM procureur” chose to “blackmail” him. *** [ 8 ] The motion for leave should be dismissed. [ 9 ] Mr.

Daoud has failed to disclose a question of law of sufficient importance to the administration of justice that would justify granting leave pursuant to the conditions set by the cases decides pursuant to s. 291 C.P.P .: see, e.g ., A.R.Q. v. 9229-0188 Québec inc. , 2018 QCCA 1298 (Mainville, J.A., in chambers). [ 10 ] At the hearing, M. Daoud emphasized, in particular, his argument that he did not violate s. 22(2) of the Engineers Act because the document on which he used the abbreviation “ing.” had nothing to do with the practice of the engineering profession.

At worst, he says, even if he did sign it, it was a mistake made during a period of emotional distress associated with the police report. [ 11 ] The judge of the Court of Québec dismissed this argument, noting that s. 22(2) creates an offence based on the use of the title, and does not specify that this use must be in the context of the practice of the profession. (paras. [17] to [21]). The nature of the offence, enacted in legislation to protect the public, is such that limited defences of due diligence and reasonable mistake were available, but the trial judge held that Mr.

Daoud did not act diligently and that his explanations as to his subjective state of mind when he signed the letter was not the basis for a reasonable mistake of fact. “Any other reasonably informed and diligent retired engineer”, wrote the judge in paragraph [37] of her reasons, “would not have made such a mistake”. [ 12 ] I agree with Mongeon, J. that the trial judge made no error of law on this point which, under s. 291 C.P.P ., is the sole basis for obtaining leave to this Court. The findings of fact as to the reasonableness of Mr.

Daoud’s actions are not grounds for appeal. [ 13 ] The remaining arguments raised in support of Mr. Daoud’s appeal have no reasonable prospect of success. As for the allegation that the trial judge is in conflict of interest, or biased, because of her past employment with the police department, as stated it is plainly unfounded. In Wewaykum Indian Band v.

Canada , 2003 SCC 45 , the Supreme Court of Canada held that judges benefit from a strong presumption of impartiality; Mr Daoud has not raised meaningful grounds that would suggest the existence of actual bias or a reasonable basis for the apprehension of bias that might overturn that presumption.

The mere fact that a sitting judge worked for the police department, even in a position of consequence, does not ipso facto render her in conflict or constitute, on its own, the source of a reasonable apprehension of bias. [ 14 ] A review of the transcript of the hearing of the first appeal before Mongeon, J. suggests that the arguments relating to the supposed forged documents and the alleged misconduct by the respondent were carefully considered and dismissed as having no proven foundation in fact. [ 15 ] Nothing approaching an error in the reasons of the appeal judge has been identified and, more specifically, no plausible grounds for raising a question of law for the purposes of a second appeal have been identified.

I make particular mention of the fact that no grounds have been shown for the allegations of misconduct made in respect of the respondent and its counsel. [ 16 ] Thus, all of the remaining arguments are also without merit. In such circumstances, leave should not be granted: see, e.g ., Amzallag v. Ste-Agathe-des-Monts (Ville de) , 2016 QCCA 1618 (Bich, J.A., in chambers). [ 17 ] I close in saying that Mr. Daoud presented his arguments with dignity and with what was plainly a sincere sense that he suffered an injustice here.

Respectfully stated, he failed to meet the burden for obtaining leave set by s. 291 C.P.P. [ 18 ] Mongeon, J. did not grant costs. I shall follow his example. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS , the undersigned : [ 19 ] DISMISSES the motion for leave to appeal, without costs. NICHOLAS KASIRER , J.A.