2018 QCCA 509, 2018 QCCA 509

Danielson c. Directrice des poursuites criminelles et pénales 2018 QCCA 509 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-10-006648-180 (550-36-000024-172; 550-61-052098-171) DATE: March 21, 2018 IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HONOURABLE MARIE-JOSÉE HOGUE, J.A. DAVID ANDREW DANIELSON APPLICANT — Defendant v. Directrice des poursuites criminelles et pénales RESPONDENT — Prosecutor and PROCUREURE GÉNÉRALE DU QUÉBEC IMPLEADED PARTY — Impleaded party JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The applicant resides in Ottawa. He was charged with driving over the limit in the district of Beauharnois.

He presented, to a judge sitting in Gatineau, an application to have his trial held in Gatineau, the district closest to his Ottawa residence. [ 2 ] His request was refused by the Honourable Christine Lafrance, on April 6, 2017, because she did not have jurisdiction over such an application when the applicant does not reside in Gatineau. As per s. 177 of the Code of Penal Procedure (“ C.P.P. ”), such a request for transfer must be presented to a judge sitting in the district where the applicant resides. [ 3 ] The applicant presented a motion for judicial review of this judgment.

In his view, s. 177 C.P.P . must be interpreted in accordance with the legislator’s intent and in such a way as to permit non-residents to benefit from it. [ 4 ] His motion was dismissed by the Superior Court on January 26, 2018. [ 5 ] He now seeks leave to appeal this last judgment as per s. 291 C.P.P. [ 6 ] However, he learned recently that his trial was held, in his absence, in Beauharnois and that he was acquitted on January 15, 2018. He rightfully provided me with this information at the hearing. [ 7 ] All parties agree that the appeal is moot, at least insofar as it concerns the case at bar.

That being said, the applicant wishes to pursue the matter nonetheless. In his view, the question is one of general interest and the judicial system would benefit from an answer. He argues that I should therefore exercise my discretion and grant leave to appeal as if the question was not moot. [ 8 ] I disagree. [ 9 ] Although the question could have been of interest, there is no longer a “live issue” nor a continuation of an adversarial context between the parties.

Furthermore, judicial economy militates against granting leave to appeal. [1] [ 10 ] The mere fact that only a very small number of persons is likely to be ready to raise and litigate the

interpretation of s. 177 C.P.P . is not sufficient to justify granting leave to appeal in the circumstances. FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 11 ] DISMISSES the motion for leave to appeal from a dismissal of judicial review on a pure question of law. MARIE-JOSÉE HOGUE, J.A. David Andrew Danielson In person

Mtre Etienne Fafard-Mongeau Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales For the respondent Mtre Serge Ghorayeb MINISTÈRE DE LA JUSTICE DU QUÉBEC For the impleaded party Date of hearing: March 16, 2018