2023 QCCA 930, 2023 QCCA 930

R. c. Leissos 2023 QCCA 930 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-10-007785-221 ( 505-01-155964-188 ), (505-01-155965-185) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: July 5, 2023 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE STÉPHANE SANSFAÇON, J.A. FRÉDÉRIC BACHAND, J.A. LORI RENÉE WEITZMAN, J.A. APPELLANT COUNSEL PROCOPIS LEISSOS Unrepresented Absent RESPONDENT COUNSEL HIS MAJESTY THE KING Mtre Richard Audet ( Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales ) On appeal from a judgment rendered on March 2, 2022, by the Honourable Marco Labrie of the Court of Québec, Criminal Division , District of Longueuil .

DESCRIPTION: Requête en rejet d'appel ( Articles 685 C.cr . et 50 des Règles de la Cour d'appel du Québec en matière criminelle ) Clerk at the hearing : Ariane Simard-Trudel Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 10:47 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. The Clerk Office tried to reach M. Leissos this morning, by mail and telephone, with no answer. Suspension of the hearing until 11:20.

11:16 Resumption of the hearing. M. Leissos is still not present at the hearing. The Court will proceed in his absence. Submission by Mtre Audet. 11:22 Discussion between the Court et Mtre Audet. 11:25 BY THE COURT : Judgement – see page 3. 11:26 Conclusion of the hearing. Ariane Simard-Trudel, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Crown seeks the

summary dismissal of the appeal on the ground that it is improperly initiated and that it has no reasonable chance of success. * * * [ 2 ] The appeal is from convictions entered as a result of guilty pleas. In his original notice of appeal, filed pursuant to section 675(1) (a)(

i) Cr.C . , the appellant did not question the validity of the guilty pleas. He rather took issue with interlocutory judgments

i) ordering the disqualification of the lawyer who was acting on his behalf initially — Mtre Jacqueline Sanderson —, ii) dismissing an argument that his right to counsel had been violated and iii) denying him the opportunity to examine the author of a sworn statement on the basis of which a search warrant had been issued. Naturally, these interlocutory judgments were all rendered before the guilty pleas were entered. [ 3 ] The appellant subsequently filed an amended notice of appeal.

While he no longer claims that his right to counsel was violated, he maintains his other grounds and adds a new ground alleging the ineffective assistance of the lawyer who was acting on his behalf when he entered his guilty pleas. [ 4 ] It should be added that the appellant was again represented by Mtre Sanderson when both his original and amended notices of appeal were filed. The Court disqualified Mtre Sanderson from representing the appellant on March 24, 2003 [1] , and he is self-represented since that time.

Despite having been duly notified, he did not participate in today’s hearing. * * * [ 5 ] As correctly noted by the Crown, the appellant’s guilty pleas disentitle him from challenging on appeal interlocutory judgments made before those pleas were entered. [2] To the extent that his notice of appeal seeks to challenge the validity of his guilty pleas, this would require leave from the Court pursuant to section 675(1) (a)(iii) Cr.C . [3] , yet no such application for leave has been filed. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 6 ] GRANTS the application to dismiss the appeal; [ 7 ] DISMISSES the appeal.

STÉPHANE SANSFAÇON, J.A. FRÉDÉRIC BACHAND, J.A. LORI RENÉE WEITZMAN, J.A.