2017 QCCA 1314, 2017 QCCA 1314

Kumar c. R. 2017 QCCA 1314 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-10-005846-157 (500-01-011365-076) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: August 31, 2017 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE nicholas kasirer , J.A. marie st-pierre , J.A. martin vauclair , J.A. APPELLANT VIJAY KUMAR (SARBJIT SING KHATRIA) IN PERSON RESPONDENT COUNSEL HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Mtre JULIE PELLETIER (Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales) On appeal from a judgment rendered on May 23, 2008 by the Honourable Judge Dominique Wilhelmy of the Court of Quebec, Criminal and Penal Division, District of Montreal

NATURE OF THE APPEAL : Conviction – 10 counts - Motion to adduce new evidence referred to the panel of the Court Clerk: Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 10:20 Commencement of the hearing. Mr. Sabir Chaudrhy, interpreter for Mr. Kumar, is present 10:20 Representations by Mr. Kumar. 10:21 Recess. 11:13 Resumption of the hearing. 11:13 Mr.

Kumar requests a further postponement of the hearing and requests a new interpreter. 11:17 Recess. 11:23 Resumption of the hearing. 11:23 BY THE COURT: The appellant’s motion for postponement is dismissed. 11:26 Recess. 12:34 Resumption of the hearing. 12:34 Submissions by Mr. Kumar. 12:55 Submissions by Mtre Pelletier. 13:00 Reply by Mr. Kumar. 13:04 By the Court : The appeal and the Motion for authorization to produce new indispensable evidence are taken under advisement.

Robert Osadchuck Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The appellant has presented a verbal application for a postponement. [ 2 ] A first postponement was granted at the appellant’s request on the day the hearing was initially scheduled on March 30, 2017. At today’s hearing, the appellant asks for a second postponement: contrary to what he previously stated to the Court registry, he states he would like his lawyer, Mtre De Vette, to present oral submissions before the Court. Mtre De Vette prepared Mr Kumar’s written argument which is now before the Court.

Mr Kumar stated that Mtre De Vette, who was in ill health in March, 2017, is still unwell, but that he recently spoke to Me De Vette’s mother who assured him that he would return to work soon. [ 3 ] Mr. Kumar is also not satisfied with his interpreter. He is unsure that he will be properly understood and advances this request

as a further justification for a postponement . *** [ 4 ] The appellant’s application for a postponement is refused. [ 5 ] On the day of the hearing of March 30, 2017, the Court granted Mr Kumar’s request to postpone the appeal in order to give him time to find a new lawyer. He subsequently informed the Registry that he would proceed without counsel on August 31, 2017 and asked that an interpreter be found. [ 6 ] The explanations now given by Mr Kumar in support of his request for a new postponement are insufficient.

The hearing was scheduled based on his decision to represent himself at the hearing and rely on the written argument prepared by counsel. Mr Kumar was given the opportunity to secure a new lawyer and did not do so. The information he has provided as to the availability of Mtre De Vette is not reliable. [ 7 ] Moreover, there is no proper reason why the interpreter present at the hearing, with whom we are told Mr Kumar has worked in the past and who plainly understands him, cannot assist him today. This request is also an insufficient justification for the postponement sought.

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS , the Court: [ 8 ] DISMISSES the application for a postponement. NICHOLAS KASIRER, J.A. MARIE ST-PIERRE, J.A. MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.A.