2020 QCCA 643, 2020 QCCA 643

Guilbault c. Cour municipale régionale de Marguerite-D'Youville (Ville de Sainte-Julie) 2020 QCCA 643 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-10-007306-200 (505-36-002156-190, M.C.:18-04603-8 (2405174)) DATE: MAY 13, 2020 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE, J.A. MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. FRANÇOIS GUILBAULT APPELLANT v.

COUR MUNICIPALE RÉGIONALE DE MARGUERITE-D’YOUVILLE (VILLE DE SAINTE-JULIE) RESPONDENT JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The respondent seeks the dismissal of the appeal of a judgment rendered on January 10, 2020 by the Superior Court of the District of Longueuil (the Honourable Michel Pennou). Said judgment dismissed the appellant’s appeal of a Municipal Court decision which had declared him guilty of failing to stop his vehicle at a red light, contrary to

article 359 of the Highway Safety Code . [1] The minutes of the Superior Court further indicate the following: M. Guilbault se présente en salle à 9h55. Le tribunal l’informe du jugement rendu ce jour ainsi que les motifs. Indique à Monsieur qu’il peut représenter une demande s’il y a lieu. [ 2 ] Further to this judgment, the appellant chose to file a notice of appeal on March 6, 2020, more than 30 days following the judgment, without seeking an extension of delay nor prior leave to appeal, as required under

article 291 of the Code of Penal Procedure (“ CPP ”) which provides: 291. L’appelant ou l’intimé en Cour supérieure et, même s’ils n’étaient pas

partie à l’instance, le procureur général ou le directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales peuvent, s’ils démontrent un intérêt s uffisant pour faire décider d’une question de droit seulement, interjeter appel devant la Cour d’appel, avec la permission d’un juge de cette cour, d’un jugement 291.

The appellant or respondent in Superior Court and, even if they were not parties to the proceedings, the Attorney General and the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions may, if they show sufficient interest in a question of law alone, bring an appeal before the Court of Appeal, with leave of a judge of that court, from a judgment 1° rendu en appel par un juge de la Cour supérieure ; (1) rendered in appeal by a judge of the Superior Court; 2° qui accueille ou rejette une demande d’habeas corpus ou de pourvoi en contrôle judiciaire. (2) granting or dismissing an application for habeas corpus or application for judicial review. (Our underlining) [ 3 ] Failure to obtain leave to appeal of the Superior Court judgment within the prescribed delay is sufficient to justify the dismissal of his appeal. [ 4 ] At the hearing, in response to comments from the Bench confirming the requirement of a prior leave to appeal, the appellant made a verbal motion for leave to appeal.

He did not however provide any justification for not previously doing so, other than by alluding to his ignorance of the law, nor did he explain why he had failed to respect the prescribed 30-day time limit. [ 5 ] Moreover, insofar as the grounds of appeal are concerned, the appellant failed to provide any details on the errors of law that

would have been committed by the judge sitting in appeal of the Municipal Court decision. His notice of appeal vaguely refers to errors to be divulged before the Court of appeal. When required by the Court to elaborate on these grounds, he raised the factual circumstances which had led the Superior Court to render judgment in his absence and claimed that he had been unable to properly locate the courtroom in a timely fashion in order to attend and be heard before judgment was rendered by default against him. [ 6 ] It is a well-established principle that access to the second level of appeal in matters of

summary infractions will only be granted with parsimony under

article 291 CPP. [2] In fact, leave will only be granted “where the proposed questions of law have a significant potential impact on the administration of Justice beyond the specifics of the case or where there appears to be a clear error, even if it cannot be said that the error has significance for the administration of Justice beyond the specific case.” [3] [ 7 ] Such is not the case here. [ 8 ] The appellant is unable to explain to the Court what significant errors of law would have been committed by the Superior Court in rendering its judgment and how such errors are of significance beyond his specific case. [ 9 ] For the reasons set out in paras [4] to [8] hereinabove, the Court cannot grant the appellant’s verbal motion for leave to appeal.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 10 ] GRANTS the Motion to dismiss the appeal; [ 11 ] DISMISSES the appeal; [ 12 ] DISMISSES the appellant’s verbal motion for leave to appeal; [ 13 ] WITHOUT COSTS . MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE, J.A. MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. Mr. François Guilbault Unrepresented Mtre Maude Poirier MRC de Marguerite-D’Youville For the Respondent Date of hearing: May 11, 2020