2015 QCCA 980, 2015 QCCA 980

Takefman c. Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions 2015 QCCA 980 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-10-005591-142 (500-36-006945-136, 500-36-006946-134) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: June 1 st , 2015 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE JULIE DUTIL , J.A. GUY GAGNON , J.A. MARIE ST-PIERRE , J.A. APPELLANT EARL TAKEFMAN In person RESPONDENTS ATTORNEY the director of criminal and penal prosecutions the attorney general of quebec Mtre JOANNE MARCEAU (Criminal and Penal prosecuting attorney) IMPLEADED PARTIES ELLIOT BIER DAWNA BIER

On appeal from a judgment rendered on January 30, 2014, by the Honourable Justice Martin Vauclair, of the Superior Court, District of Montreal. NATURE OF THE APPEAL : Mandamus Clerk: Marcelle Desmarais Courtroom: Antonio-Lamer HEARING 12 : 22 Commencement of the hearing. 12 : 22 Submissions by M. Earl Takefman. 12 : 47 Suspension. 12 : 52 Resumption. 12 : 52 Submissions by Mtre Joanne Marceau. 13 : 04 Reply by M. Takefman. 13 : 11 End of arguments. 13 : 11 Suspension. 13 :14 Resumption. BY THE COURT: Unanimous judgment - see page 3.

Marcelle Desmarais Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The appellant as a private prosecutor requested from the Superior Court a mandamus to set aside an order of stay of proceedings (s. 579 Cr.C .) filed by the prosecutor, Mtre Natalie Brisette. [ 2 ] It is now a deeply rooted principle that Crown prosecutors enjoy a wide discretion for their decision making: [46] […] Judicial non-interference with prosecutorial discretion has been referred to as a “matter of principle based on the doctrine of separation of powers as well as a matter of policy founded on the efficiency of the system of criminal justice” which also recognizes that

prosecutorial discretion is “especially ill-suited to judicial review”: […] [1] [Reference omitted] [ 3 ] The trial judge rightly decided that there was no evidence indicating the Crown committed a "flagrant impropriety" [2] by choosing to stay all private criminal charges filed by appellant.

His arguments do not point to any evidence suggesting wrongful conduct amounting to corruption, obvious lies or flagrant abuse of power by the Crown [3] . [ 4 ] In fact, the appellant has not demonstrated that his case was among those rare situations, also called by the jurisprudence the "clearest of cases", which would have justified the intervention of the Superior Court [4] . For the aforementioned reasons, the Court: [ 5 ] DismissES the appeal. JULIE DUTIL, J.A. GUY GAGNON, J.A. MARIE ST-PIERRE, J.A. M.

Earl Takefman In person For the appellant Mtre Joanne Marceau Criminal and penal prosecuting attorney For the respondents