2014 QCCA 1949, 2014 QCCA 1949

March c.

Canada (Minister of Justice) (United States of America) 2014 QCCA 1949 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-10-005217-128, 500-10-005218-126, 500-10-005334-139 ( 500-36-005976-116 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: October 21, 2014 THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE N o : 500-10-005217-128 APPLICANT SIMA MARCH IN PERSON RESPONDENT COUNSEL MINISTER OF JUSTICE CANADA on behalf of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Mtre MAGUY HACHEM ( Public Prosecution Service of Canada Attorney ) N o : 500-10-005218-126 APPLICANT ALEXANDER MARCH IN PERSON RESPONDENT COUNSEL MINISTER OF JUSTICE CANADA on behalf of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Mtre MAGUY HACHEM ( Public Prosecution Service of Canada Attorney )

N o : 500-10-005334-139 APPLICANTS SIMA MARCH ALEXANDER MARCH IN PERSON RESPONDENT COUNSEL MINISTER OF JUSTICE CANADA on behalf of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Mtre MAGUY HACHEM ( Public Prosecution Service of Canada Attorney ) NATURE OF THE APPEAL : Motion for modification of conditions during judicial interim release. (Section 20b) of the Extradition A ct &

Section 670 of the Criminal Code ) Clerk: Asma Berrak Courtroom: RC.18 HEARING 14:16 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of parties. Discussion between the Judge and Mtre Zvezdin. 14:18 Me Zvezdin who is replacing Me Julius Grey today at Court informs the judge that she does not have a mandate to represent the Applicants on the Motion presented today but confirms that Me Julius Grey will be pleading the appeal and Motion for judicial review on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. March, as scheduled on October 28, 2014. 14 :18 Comment by Mtre Hachem. 14 :19 Submission by Mr. March. 14:32 Submission by Mtre Hachem. 14:33 Intervention by Mr. March. Suspension of hearing.

15:04 Resumption of hearing. Discussion between the Judge and the parties. Remittal by Me Zvezdin of a copy of the Interim judicial release order rendered on December 17, 2012. 15:06 Submission by Mtre Hachem. 15:10 Reply by Mr. March. 15:12 Judgment – see page 15:16 Conclusion of the hearing. Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT [ 1 ] I am presented with a Motion for modification of conditions during judicial interim release whereby Mr. and Mrs. March are seeking an order to modify the order pertaining to their surrender to the authorities 24 hours prior to the hearing of the appeal and/or judicial review.

They are asking to be allowed to appear personally at the hearing and to surrender into custody within 24 hours of the Court ruling. [ 2 ] I must underline that, prior to the presentation of this Motion, Mr. March addressed a letter to the Office of the Court on October 20, 2014, explaining that he was required to present this Motion the next day, on an urgent basis, because his sister is getting married out of town on the date of the hearing and his children have no caretakers on that day, as a result of his family attending the wedding. [ 3 ] During the hearing, Mr.

March alleges rather that he is seeking a modification to the order because he would like to attend the hearing, as he lacks confidence in the attorney that will represent him. [ 4 ] There is no affidavit attached to his Motion and no copy of the judicial interim release order was filed with the Motion. A copy of the order rendered on December 17, 2012 which was made available during hearing confirms however that Mr. and Mrs. March are ordered to surrender into custody 24 hours prior to the hearing on the appeal or judicial review. [ 5 ] The reason invoked orally by Mr.

March to seek the modification to the condition of the judicial interim release order, being that he lacks confidence in his lawyer, in addition to not having been specifically alleged in his Motion nor mentioned in the letter provided to the Office of the Court, does not convince me that I should depart from the general rule provided under

section 688 of the Criminal Code , which applies to matters of extradition by virtue of

section 52 of the Extradition Act, whereby “ An appellant who is in custody and who is represented by counsel is not entitled to be present at the hearing of the appeal…” . FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 6 ] DISMISSES the motion. GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE, J.A