2022 QCCA 324, 2022 QCCA 324

D'Allaire c. R. 2022 QCCA 324 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-10-007728-221 ( 500-36-009822-217 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: March 7, 2022 THE HONOURABLE MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.A. APPLICANT COUNSEL Paul D'Allaire Mtre VINCENT PETIT ( Centre communautaire juridique de Montréal ) By videoconference RESPONDENT COUNSEL HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Mtre FRANÇOIS GIASSON ( Ville de Montréal ) By videoconference DESCRIPTION: Amended Motion for leave to appeal from a conviction on a ground that involves questions of law (

Article 839 of the Criminal Code and articles 23 and ss. of the Rules in Criminal Matters ). Clerk at the hearing : Anne Dumont Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING 9:31 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. Submissions by Mtre Petit. 9:41 Submissions by Mtre Giasson. 9:52 Reply by Mtre Petit. 9:55 Recess of the hearing.

10:00 Resumption of the hearing. BY THE JUDGE : Judgment – see page 3.10:01 Conclusion of the hearing. Anne Dumont, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [1] The applicant seeks leave to appeal from the decision dated December 9, 2021, of the Superior Court of Justice, District ofMontreal, by Justice Yvan Poulin, sitting as a

Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissing an appeal from conviction in the MunicipalCourt of Montreal (Judge Gabriel Boutros) on one count of committing an indecent act in a public place in the presence of one or morepersons (s. 173(1)(

b) of the Criminal Code). [2] The applicant was arrested in flagrante delicto. He was seen masturbating in the women’s restroom in a Montreal downtownrestaurant inside a locked cubicle and was seen by two women through a small opening between the door and the wall of the cubicle. Hewas still in the cubicle when the police officers arrived and arrested him. [3] At trial the only contested issue was whether a locked stall in a restaurant restroom can be considered a public place: R. v.D'Allaire, 2021 QCCM 2, par. 4 and 48.

Recklessness as a sufficient form of mens rea for the offence was not contested. [4] On appeal before the Superior Court, represented by a different lawyer, the applicant argued that "the trial judge erred inconcluding:

a) that the cubicle was a "public place";

b) that the appellant had waived any expectation of privacy; and

c) that the indecentact was observed without resorting to "extraordinary means." The appellant further argues that trial judge erred as to the requisite mensrea for this offence.": D'Allaire v. R., 2021 QCCS 5148, par. 3. [5] In his proposed appeal before this Court, the applicant focuses on the narrower issue of mens rea and whether recklessness is asufficient requirement for the offence: 8.1. Le juge de la Cour supérieure a erré en droit en concluant que l’infraction prévue à l’article 173

(1) b) du Code criminel pouvait êtrecommise par simple insouciance ; 8.2. Le juge de la Cour supérieure a erré en droit en rendant un verdict déraisonnable en ce que : (

i) Le juge de la Cour supérieure a conclu que le juge de première instance a fondé sa déclaration de culpabilité sur la preuve quel’appelant avait agi volontairement et non par insouciance, ce qui ne reflète pas adéquatement les propos du juge de première instance auparagraphe 57 de sa décision ; (ii) Le juge de la Cour supérieure a conclu que la preuve en première instance supportait la conclusion que l’appelant avait agi demanière volontaire et non par simple insouciance, ce qui n’est pas reflété par la preuve présentée en première instance. [6] Should the appeal be granted, he will request directions in relation to the conduct of the appeal because he challenges theauthority of Srei c.

R., (C.A.Q.) where the Court held that recklessness of the accused was sufficient to find mens reafor the offence. [7] I would not grant the application. When reading paragraphs 55 to 57 of the initial decision, the applicant does not show any errorin the Superior Court's decision when, commenting on the trial's judge decision, the appeal judge concluded: ln any event, it must be underlined that the trial judge's main factual conclusion on this issue is that the appellant was acting willfully and"did not intend to hide his actions from any discovery".

The record shows that this finding is supported by the evidence. [8] In the circumstances, as the applicant conceded, the question addressing the mens rea of the offence is entirely hypothetical. FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [9] DISMISSES the application. MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.A.