2017 QCCA 1561, 2017 QCCA 1561

Olumide c. Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions 2017 QCCA 1561 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-10-006436-172 (550-36-000021-178) DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2017 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE YVES-MARIE MORISSETTE, J.A. PATRICK HEALY, J.A. SIMON RUEL, J.A. ADE OLUMIDE APPELLANT - Applicant v. DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL AND PENAL PROSECUTIONS RESPONDENT - Respondent JUDGMENT [ 1 ] This matter was referred to us by the Deputy Registrar [1] for

summary determination under

section 685 of the Criminal Code . [2] Context [ 2 ] By letter dated 7 March 2017 the Coordinating Judge of the Court of Quebec in Gatineau informed Mr. Olumide that two informations submitted by him under sections 504 and 507 of the Code, alleging criminal offences against “The Queen” and the “Superior Court,” would not be heard “for lack of legal grounds as to the alleged defendants.” Mr. Olumide then sought a writ of mandamus in the Superior Court, ostensibly to order the Court of Quebec to receive the two informations. The Superior Court dismissed this application. [3] Mr. Olumide now appeals from that dismissal. The respondent has filed a motion for

summary determination of the appeal and for a declaration that Mr. Olumide is a vexatious litigant in this Court. [4] That motion has been referred to the panel by the Deputy Registrar on the basis that the appeal does not show a substantial ground of argument. We may dismiss the appeal summarily if it is frivolous or vexatious and can be determined without further adjournment. Discussion [ 3 ] To support this appeal Mr. Olumide has filed voluminous materials. We have examined them but it is not necessary to review these materials. At issue is whether the appeal is frivolous or vexatious.

This in turn requires attention to two conclusions of the Superior Court in dismissing Mr. Olumide’s application for mandamus . The first is that “his reasoning for an eventual conviction of The Queen and the Superior Court , is unsustainable.” [5] Second, “the decision [of the Court of Quebec] not to appoint a justice to consider whether to compel the appearance of The Queen and the Superior Court , is appropriate.” [6] [ 4 ] The decision to authorise or dismiss an information in support of a private prosecution is discretionary.

The justice must determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed, anywhere, an indictable offence that may be tried in the province in which the justice resides. [7] In this matter the justice of the Court of Quebec plainly considered the informations submitted by Mr. Olumide and refused them in part because the informations were insufficient to support the commencement of a private prosecution before the courts of Quebec. In the absence of jurisdictional error or error on the face of the record, this decision is not subject to review.

It is also not subject to appeal. [8] [ 5 ] Moreover, an issue which was not considered in the Superior Court but which provides another compelling reason for confirming the courts below pertains to the principle of sovereign immunity. This principle does not allow criminal prosecution of the Queen or the Superior Court. [9] Not only does it reinforce the decision of the Court of Quebec but a decision by the Superior Court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the authorisation of a private prosecution against the Crown or the Superior Court would be legally incorrect.

Accordingly, there is no basis on which this Court could or should intervene. [ 6 ] The record before us requires no further consideration. It has no merit and in the circumstances fully warrants

summary dismissal of the appeal under

section 685 of the Code and the authority of this Court’s decision in Duhamel . [10]

Summary dismissal must be used sparingly and, as the Court has said, only when the appeal verges on nonsense or gibberish. This is such a case and it will be dismissed without further hearing. [ 7 ] The volume of material filed by Mr. Olumide in this appeal and various collateral proceedings in the Court compels this

conclusion. [ 8 ] FOR THESE REASONS , the Court: [ 9 ] DISMISSES the appeal. YVES-MARIE MORISSETTE, J.A. PATRICK HEALY, J.A. SIMON RUEL, J.A. Mr. Ade Olumide In person Mtre Sandra Bonanno Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions For the respondent