2017 QCCA 1343, 2017 QCCA 1343

Olumide c. Conseil de la magistrature 2017 QCCA 1343 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-026878-173 (550-17-009676-170) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: September 6, 2017 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDINE ROY, J.C.A. APPLICANT ADE OLUMIDE IN PERSON RESPONDENT COUNSEL CONSEIL DE LA MAGISTRATURE Mtre PIERRE LAURIN (Tremblay Bois Mignault Lemay S.E.N.C.R.L.) DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal 2 nd Amended Application for Declaratory Judgment Clerk: Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: RC-18

HEARING 10:33 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. 10:33 Submissions by Mr. Olumide. 11:15 Recess. 11:26 Resumption of the hearing. 11:26 Submissions by Mtre Laurin. 11:26 Reply by Mr. Olumide. 11:37 Recess. 2:15 Resumption of the hearing. 2:15 Judgment – see page 3. Robert Osadchuck Clerk BY THE JUDGE JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The documents and proceedings filed in the Court record and Mr. Olumide's oral representations are barely intelligible and the undersigned summarizes only briefly their contents here. [ 2 ] It seems that, in or around 2009, Mr.

Olumide requested a $16 000 GST reimbursement from Revenue Canada following the purchase of properties. The claim was denied. Mr. Olumide unsuccessfully contested this decision in the Tax Court, the Federal Court, the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada. [ 3 ] Mr. Olumide has been declared a vexatious litigant by the Federal Court of Appeal ( Canada v. Olumide , 2017 FCA 42 ), the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (see Olumide v. Ontario , 2017 ONSC 1201 ), the trial division of the Federal Court ( Olumide v. Canada , 2016 CF 1106 , par. 13 ), and the Ontario Court of Appeal ( Olumide v.

Ontario , 2015 ONCA 651 , par. 5 and 8 ). [ 4 ] Mr. Olumide considers that he is the victim of a fiscal fraud perpetrated by Revenue Canada and by the Courts. He tried to lay an information before a justice of the peace, against the Queen and the Superior Court of Québec (Section 504 Cr. C.). Justice Millar, of the Court of Quebec, wrote to Mr. Olumide to indicate that no justice of the peace would hear his complaint. Justice Deslauriers was later seized of a similar request and maintained the same position. [ 5 ] Mr. Olumide then lodged a complaint against Justice Millar with the Quebec Judicial Council.

The Council concluded that the complaint contained no allegation allowing to believe that the provisions of the Code of Ethics concerning the behaviour of judges had been contravened. [ 6 ] Mr. Olumide was unsuccessful in obtaining the judicial review of the letter of the Quebec Judicial Council. The judgment was rendered by Justice Bédard on June 5, 2017. This is the judgment being contested here. [ 7 ] Article 30 (5) C.C.P. provides that judicial review judgments of the Superior Court may be appealed only with leave of the Court. [ 8 ] Mr.

Olumide filed a declaration of appeal on June 22, 2017, but filed a motion for leave to appeal only on August 25, 2017. [ 9 ]

Article 360 C.C.P. provides that leave to appeal must be filed together with the application for leave, within 30 days after the date of the notice of judgment. In this case, the time limit had expired long before a motion for leave to appeal was filed. The time limits for appeal are strict and the right to appeal is forfeited on their expiry (Article 363 C.C.P.). [ 10 ] When leave is required, the filing of the notice of appeal does not relieve appellant from filing the motion for leave to appeal within the prescribed time limit (see for example Boukendour c.

Syndicat des professeures et professeurs de l'Université du Québec en Outaouais , 2017 QCCA 1074 , par. 2 , 3 and 5). [ 11 ] Mr. Olumide also filed an application for declaratory judgment (August 23, 2017, amended on August 25, 2017) claiming that leave to appeal is not required. The language used in the motion is confusing. Although claiming violation of different constitutional

rights and alleging damages, the conclusions of the motion only request a declaration that leave to appeal is not required or that leave to appeal is granted. [ 12 ] If the motion is only aimed at deciding whether the leave to appeal J. Bédard's judgment is required, the undersigned has already decided in the affirmative. [ 13 ] If Mr. Olumide also seeks a declaratory judgment to challenge the constitutionality of legal provisions, the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to act as it only hears appeals against certain judgments of other courts (Art. 29 C.C.P.).

The jurisdiction of the Court, and more specifically of one of its judges sitting alone, is statutory and limited by what is provided for in the law ( Bériault c. R. , 2016 QCCA 1094 , par. 3 ; Station touristique Massif du Sud (1993) inc. c. St-Philémon (Municipalité de) , 2015 QCCA 2082 , par. 10 ). The Court of Appeal cannot simply decide to seize itself of a motion for declaratory judgment if the matter has not been heard by a trial court first. [ 14 ] In reality, Mr. Olumide is seeking to appeal the judgment dismissing a judicial review and his motion for leave to appeal has not been filed within 30 days.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 15 ] DISMISSES the 2nd amended application for declaratory judgment; [ 16 ] DISMISSES the application for leave to appeal; [ 17 ] WITH COSTS . Claudine roy , J.C.A.