2016 QCCA 1252, 2016 QCCA 1252

Beseiso c. R. 2016 QCCA 1252 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-10-006201-162 (550-36-000022-150, 550-61-040810-158, 550-61-040811-156, 550-61-040813-152, 550-61- 040812-154) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: August 2, 2016 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE martin vauclair , J.A. geneviève marcotte , J.A. mark schrager , J.A. APPLICANT ALEX BESEISO IN PERSON RESPONDENT COUNSEL HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Mtre MARIE-ÈVE FRÉCHETTE-ROYER (Criminal and Penal prosecuting attorney) DESCRIPTION : Motion for leave to appeal from a conviction Clerk: Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault

HEARING 10:04 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. 10:04 Submissions by Mr. Beseiso. 10:12 Submissions by Mtre Fréchette. 10:15 Reply by Mr. Beseiso. 10:17 Recess. 10:18 Resumption of the hearing. 10:19 By the Court: judgment – see page 3. 10:19 Conclusion of the hearing.

Robert Osadchuck Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Petitioner seeks leave to appeal a judgment of the Superior Court (l'honorable Marie-Josée Bédard) district of Gatineau, delivered on June 16, 2016, granting his appeal in part. [ 2 ] Indeed, the Petitioner was successful in his appeal before the Superior Court except for the guilty verdict for having illegally, on February 11, 2014, stopped his vehicle contrary to section 386(7) of the Highway Safety Code , CQLR c C-24.2.

Section 319 is also relevant. Those sections read as follow: 319. For the purposes of this Title, unless the context indicates otherwise, the term “limited access highway” is a public highway that may be entered or left only at specially provided entrances or exits. ... 386. Except in cases of necessity or where another provision of this Code permits it, no person may stop a road vehicle ... (7) on a limited access highway, at an entrance to or exit from such a highway or on an access ramp; ... [ 3 ] Pursuant to

section 291 of the Quebec Penal Code , he must now show sufficient interest in a question of law alone to obtain leave to appeal. [ 4 ] The Petitioner argues that the police officer was not a credible witness and his testimony should have been discarded, thus leaving the Court with an absence of evidence that he had stopped his vehicle contrary to the Highway Safety Code . [ 5 ] The fact that the vehicle was stopped illegally is overwhelming and does not depend exclusively on the testimony of the police officer.

Indeed, at the hearing, the Petitioner confirmed that he admitted at trial that he had stopped his vehicle on the shoulder of the highway to talk on his cellular phone. There was no need for the trial judge or the Superior Court appeal judge, in this context, to deal with the credibility of the witness on this particular issue. Consequently, the motion fails. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 6 ] DISMISSES the motion; [ 7 ] With costs provided by law.

martin vauclair , J.A. geneviève marcotte , J.A. mark schrager , J.A.