2018 QCCA 260, 2018 QCCA 260

Tavares c. City of Rosemere 2018 QCCA 260 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-10-006271-165 (700-36-001217-164) DATE: February 16, 2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE, J.A. SIMON RUEL, J.A. CLAUDINE ROY, J.A. RICARDO TAVARES APPLICANT – Accused v.

CITY OF ROSEMERE RESPONDENT – Prosecutrix JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Applicant is seeking the review of the judgment rendered by a judge of this Court on December 1st, 2017 [1] . [ 2 ] Although the Applicant asserts that the judgment dismissed his Motion for leave to appeal, said judgment in fact refused to grant him an extended delay for the filing of a Motion for leave to appeal. [ 3 ] The case is governed by the Code of Penal procedure [2] .

In her judgment, Justice Marie-Josée Hogue first outlined the history of the case, from the time that the Applicant was found guilty of a driving offence by a Municipal Court judge on March 15, 2016 to the dismissal of the appeal of this judgment by the Superior Court on October 11, 2016.

She noted that the Applicant had failed to obtain the prior authorization to extend the time delay to file his appeal of the conviction as well as to file an amended Notice of appeal outlining his grounds of appeal in Superior Court. [ 4 ] Justice Hogue also pointed out that the grounds of appeal which the Applicant had pleaded verbally at the hearing (rather than in a proper written Motion for leave to appeal) did not raise a question of law alone as required under

section 291 of the Code of Penal Procedure . As a result, she dismissed his Motion. [ 5 ] The Applicant claims that he is entitled to ask this Court to review Justice Hogue’s judgment by virtue of article 675 (4) of the Criminal Code , on the following two grounds: 5.1. Justice Hogue should have asked him for the Motion for leave to appeal which was in his hands at the time of the hearing; 5.2. He was not represented by counsel. [ 6 ] In support of his Motion, the Applicant files among other schedules a Motion for leave to appeal from a conviction on a ground that involves questions of law which refers to

article 291 of the Code of Penal procedure . [ 7 ] The Court has no jurisdiction to review the Hogue judgment. The right of appeal, if any, is statutory and the Code of Penal procedure does not provide for the review of a judgment which refuses leave to appeal . Article 675 (4) of the Criminal Code does not apply and is no assistance to the Applicant. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 8 ] DISMISSES the Motion to review the refusal to grant leave to appeal a conviction. GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE, J.A. SIMON RUEL, J.A.

CLAUDINE ROY, J.A. Ricardo Tavares In person Mtre Christophe Bruyninx Dufresne Hébert Comeau inc. For Respondent Date of hearing: February 12, 2018