2022 QCCA 1527, 2022 QCCA 1527

Paquin c. R. 2022 QCCA 1527 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-10-007290-206 ( 540-73-000405-177 SEQ. 001 et 002) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: November 10, 2022 THE HONOURABLE MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.A. APPLICANTS Jean Marc Paquin Unrepresented Pierre Cardin ABSENT AND UNREPRESENTED RESPONDENT COUNSEL HIS MAJESTY THE KING Mtre Julie Laborde ( Service des poursuites pénales du Canada ) By videoconference DESCRIPTION: Motion for leave to appeal (Art. 675 4(3) C.c.

r) Clerk at the hearing : Ariane Simard-Trudel Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING 9:32 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. Preliminary remarks by the judge regarding the fact that Mr. Cardin is absent and has not responded to the summoning.

9:33 Discussions between the judge and Mtre Laborde. 9:36 Discussions between the judge and Mr. Paquin. The judge warned Mr. Paquin that if he speaks about the facts of the case, what he says could be used against him and to be careful in this regard. Submissions by Mr. Paquin. 9:42 Discussions between the judge and Mr. Paquin. 9:43 Mr. Paquin resumes his submissions. 9:50 Discussions between the judge and Mr. Paquin. 9:52 Mr. Paquin resumes his submissions. 9:57 Discussions between the judge and Mr. Paquin. 10:00 Mr. Paquin resumes his submissions. 10:03 Mr.

Paquin ask the judge to suspend his parole condition. 10:05 Submissions by Mtre Laborde. 10:07 Reply by Mr. Paquin. 10:10 Suspension of the hearing. 10:30 Resumption of the hearing. 10:31 BY THE JUDGE : Judgement – see page 4. 10:35 Conclusion of the hearing.

Ariane Simard-Trudel, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The applicants seek to appeal from three judgments of Justice Pierre Labrie, Superior Court of Quebec, district of Laval, rendered orally on February 14, 2020 and by writing on April 23, 2020, dismissing summarily their motions seeking a stay of proceedings or postponement of the coming trial. [ 2 ] The application for permission to appeal was filed on February 19, 2020 by unrepresented applicants.

On May 1, 2021, it was postponed sine die , to be heard after a Superior Court hearing. [ 3 ] The Registry placed the procedure on the roll after inquiring into its status on June 29, 2021. The applicants were summoned by the Registry on the basis of the information on file with the Court. Only Mr. Paquin is present today. Mr. Cardin, despite being on bail pending his appeal and under the condition of being present before the Court when required, is absent. [ 4 ] However,

section 54 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal of Quebec in Criminal Matters, SI/2018-96 provides that: Absence 54 In the event that a party fails to appear on the day and at the time set for the presentation of the motion, the Court, the judge or the clerk may choose to hear only the parties in attendance and adjudicate the matter without hearing the absent party or, alternatively, to adjourn the hearing subject to specified conditions. [ 5 ] I have the benefit of the written application, of the observations of Mr. Paquin, and of those of Mtre Laborde. [ 6 ] Mr.

Paquin adds a request to suspend the application of his parole conditions to which he has been subject since his release from the penitentiary. [ 7 ] In three written decisions, Justice Labrie canvassed the issues and carefully analyses the circumstances and the applications before him. He notes that applicants were arguing pre-inculpatory delays, res judicata and disclosure issues. [ 8 ] Mtre Laborde informs me that two of the three preliminary decisions are being appealed in a related file of the applicants and for which they are represented by counsel.

Only the issue of unreasonable delay is not raised in this other appeal. [ 9 ] Given that two of the issues argued here (res judicata and incomplete disclosure) are already under appeal, I will confine myself to saying that the applicants cannot bring a separate motion to appeal these issues. Permission will be refused on this ground alone. [ 10 ] As to the judgment on unreasonable delay, the proposed grounds of appeal in the applications permit no other conclusion than

that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success. Justice Labrie exercised his judicial discretion as per R. v. Cody, 2017 SCC 31, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 659 and R. v. Kutynec (1992), (ON CA), 7 O.R. (3d) 277 (C.A. Ont.), R. v. Vukelich (1996) (BC CA), 108 C.C.C. (3d) 193 (B.C.C.A.). No error is shown. [11] As for the verbal request to suspend the parole conditions, I have no jurisdiction to grant that request. FOR THESE REASONS, the undersigned: [12] DISMISSES the application for permission to appeal; [13] DISMISSES the verbal request to suspend the parole conditions for want of jurisdiction. MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.A.