2023 QCCA 1209, 2023 QCCA 1209

Batchelor c. R. 2023 QCCA 1209 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-10-008022-236 ( 550-01-114718-192 ) MINUTES OF HEARING WARNING : The trial court made an order under s. 486.4(1) Cr.C . directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way. DATE: September 22, 2023 THE HONOURABLE STÉPHANE SANSFAÇON, J.A.

APPLICANT COUNSEL Paul David Grant Batchelor Mtre Elisabeth Beauchamp ( Desjardins Coté ) Absent RESPONDENT COUNSEL HIS MAJESTY THE KING Mtre Raphaël Lacoste ( Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales ) Absent DESCRIPTION: Motion for interim release from custody. ( Section 679(1) a)(3) of the Criminal Code ,

section 31 of the Rules in Criminal Matters ) Clerk at the hearing : Ariane Simard-Trudel Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING Continuation of the hearing held on September 21, 2023. The parties were excused from appearing in Court. BY THE JUDGE : Judgement – see page 3.

Ariane Simard-Trudel, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT WARNING : The trial court made an order under s. 486.4(1) Cr.C . directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way. [ 1 ] The appellant seeks his release from custody pending the determination of his appeal ( s. 679(1) (

a) Cr.C . ). [ 2 ] The respondent opposes the appellant’s application for release from custody. [ 3 ] In light of the submissions of both parties, I am of the opinion that the appellant has not discharged his burden of proof and that he should not be released pending the determination of the appeal. [ 4 ] First, I am of the view that the appellant’s grounds of appeal are not frivolous ( s. 679(3) (

a) Cr.C . ) and that the appellant would surrender himself into custody in accordance with the terms of the order ( s. 679(3) (

b) Cr.C . ). [ 5 ] I am of the view, however, that his detention is necessary in the public interest. [ 6 ] The appellant was arrested for sexual assaults in Ontario in November 2019. He was released on bail and was then bound by three release orders. [ 7 ] In January 2020, the appellant appeared in response to three further counts of sexual assault on three different women. A bail hearing was subsequently held, and Meredith, J.C.Q. rendered a decision based on paragraphs (

b) and (

c) of s. 515(10) Cr.C . ordering that the accused remain in detention during the proceedings. Meredith, J.C.Q. held that the plan of release the appellant was proposing was insufficient in light of the fact that it had been put to the test and had failed to prevent the commission of an additional sexual assault. The appellant had been bound by three release orders at the time of committing the sexual assault on A.T. and had breached his conditions by using social media to contact the victim. Meredith.

J.C.Q. considered that the appellant’s supervision by his parents was insufficient and that the sureties did not alleviate the risk of recidivism. He qualified the appellant’s behaviour as “predatory in nature” and expressed serious concerns about the appellant’s ability to comply with a court order and his trustworthiness in that respect. [ 8 ] In April 2022, the appellant was convicted on two of the five counts of sexual assault with which he had been charged in Ontario and received a sentence of 891 days and one of 90 days to be served consecutively.

He has been in detention since then, and still is. [ 9 ] In September 2022, the appellant was convicted on one of the three counts with which he had been charged in Quebec. In April 2023, the trial judge imposed a 4-year sentence on the appellant (which sentence was reduced to 17 months in order to take into account the time spent by the appellant in custody as well as his pre-sentence custody). On June 5, 2023, a judge of this Court granted his motion to extend the time to appeal the conviction and his motion for leave to appeal his sentence.

On September 12, 2023, he filed an amended appeal involving a question of law alone. He now seeks his release from custody pending the determination of his appeal. [ 10 ] At the time he committed the sexual assault on A.T., for which he was found guilty in September 2022, and at the time he communicated with the two other women, the appellant was bound by three release orders made by the Ontario judge. He breached his conditions on these three occasions by using social media to contact his victims. Neither of his parents were able to act as effective sureties to prevent the breach of his conditions of release.

He now proposes a very similar plan that is clearly insufficient to prevent the commission of an additional sexual assault. He has failed to demonstrate that his detention is not necessary in the public interest. [ 11 ] Consequently, the application for release from custody pending the determination of the appeal should be dismissed. FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 12 ] DISMISSES the appellant’s application for interim release from custody. STÉPHANE SANSFAÇON, J.A.