R. v. Sayers, 2020 QCCA 98

Cardin c. R. 2020 QCCA 98COURT OF APPEAL CANADAPROVINCE OF QUEBECREGISTRY OFMONTREAL No: 500-10-007200-197, 500-10-007227-190(540-36-001051-191, 540-73-000405-177) DATE: January 23, 2020 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE NICOLE DUVAL HESLER, C.J.Q. JACQUES CHAMBERLAND, J.A. MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. PIERRE CARDINJEAN-MARC PAQUINAPPELLANTS – Accusedv. HER MAJESTY THE QUEENRESPONDENT – Prosecutor JUDGMENT [1] The Crown seeks the

summary dismissal of the two appeals herein as frivolous pursuant to Section 685 (1) Cr.C. [2] The Appellants are charged with tax evasion and fraud; the trial is to begin before a judge and jury on February 24, 2020 for 5weeks.

Appeal 500-10-007200-197 [3] On April 5, 2019, the Appellants filed before the case management judge in Superior Court a “notice of habeas corpus (Praetorand replevin) seeking relief pursuant to UNRIP” (hereinafter the habeas corpus motion). [4] After the Appellants’ appeal of a case management decision was dismissed by this Court (on August 9, 2019, 500-10-007067-190), the Honourable Lyne Décarie, J.S.C., dismissed the habeas corpus motion on October 1, 2019 considering that the conclusionssought were on their face frivolous, unfounded and destined to fail. The conclusions of the motion read as follows:

i) The Petitioner be released, forthwith, from the jurisdiction of Canada; ii) The cost of this petition of $10,000 payable to the Kinakwii Legal Department; iii) Punitive damages in the amount of $390,000 or such sum the Honourable Court deemed just, for the violation of the InternationalHuman Rights of the Petitioners, per their fellow indigenous defendants in R. v.

Sayers; iv) Transfer the matter to the Kinakwii Indigenous tribunal. [5] As the judge of first instance notes, habeas corpus is the procedure to review the legality of detention (judgment para. 3, citingKhela (2014 SCC 24 , [2014] 1 S.C.R. 502, para. 29). The Appellants are not in detention. [6] As was the habeas corpus motion in first instance the appeal is frivolous on its face.

Moreover, given particularly the Appellantsprevious appeal dismissed by the Court on August 9, 2019, this appeal is vexatious as it appears that its purpose is to seek delay in theprosecution before the Superior Court. [7] We are also seized with a motion to review the registrar’s decision to refer this matter to a bench of the Court. This motion wasreferred to this bench by our colleague sitting as judge alone on December 17, 2019.

This motion, like the appeal, should be dismissed. * * * Appeal 500-10-007227-190 [8] On November 6, 2019, the judge dismissed the following three motions presented by the Appellants during a case managementhearing:

(

i) QUEBEC C-12 CHARTER NOTICE – CLAIM FOR CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION UNDER ADMIRALTY MARITIME LAW UNDER THE TORTFEASORS AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ACT; (ii) NOTICE OF DEMAND FOR NON-STATUTORY WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO PROCEEDINGS IN FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE AND ALL WRITS ACT of 1789 REQUIRING ALL STATE COURTS TO HONOR PUBLIC ACTS FOR DEMANDING PROOF OF AUTHORITY BY OATH OF OFFICE FOR NON-JUDICIAL COURT EMPLOYEE CORAM NON- JUDICE TO PRESIDE OVER A JUDICIAL FACT FINDING PROCEEDINGS WHICH MAY RESULT IN THE ISSUANCE OF MONEY JUDGMENTS COMMONLY REFERRED AS SUPPORT ORDERS; (iii) NOTICE MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO WITH PROOF OF CLAIM AND ALLODIAL FEE

SCHEDULE – SILENCE IS ACQUIESCENCE, AGREEMENT, AND DISHONOR THIS IS SELF-EXECUTING CONTRACT – ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY. [ 9 ] The following is the judge’s finding on these motions: [18] Le Tribunal a pris connaissance des trois requêtes et de l’affidavit et constate qu’elles sont non conformes, frivoles, farfelues, incohérentes, parfois même vexatoires, et sont manifestement non fondées. Il ne s’agit que d’une panoplie d’informations, de propos, de textes et d’énoncés disparates qui n’ont aucune assise légale que ce soit.

Les enjeux, les conclusions recherchées, ainsi que le fondement juridique de ces requêtes sont confus, vagues, inappropriés et non conformes, rendant les requêtes vouées à l’échec et il n’y a pas lieu de tenir de débat au fond. As such and relying on the teachings of the Court in Grich , [1] the judge summarily dismissed the motions. [ 10 ] The judge’s evaluation is apt; the appeals deserve the same fate and will be dismissed.

Moreover and as indicated above, this Court has already dismissed another appeal by these Appellants from a case management decision informing the Appellants that no appeal lies in such matters. FOR ALL THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE COURT: IN FILE 500-10-007200-197 [ 11 ] GRANTS Respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal (“Requête en rejet

sommaire du Notice of appeal”); [ 12 ] DISMISSES Appellants’ motion to review the decision of the registrar of December 3, 2019; [ 13 ] DISMISSES the appeal. IN FILE 500-10-007227-190 [ 14 ] GRANTS Respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal (“Requête en rejet

sommaire du Notice of appeal”); [ 15 ] DISMISSES the appeal. NICOLE DUVAL HESLER, C.J.Q. JACQUES CHAMBERLAND, J.A. MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. Pierre Cardin Jean-Marc Paquin Unrepresented Mtre Marie-Ève Trudel Service des poursuites pénales du Canada For Respondent Date of hearing: January 20, 2020