2020 QCCA 167, 2020 QCCA 167

Leung c. R. 2020 QCCA 167 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No .: 500-10-006824-187 ( 500-01-133180-163 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: January 30, 2020 THE HONOURABLE MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. APPLICANT Véronique Talbot PRESENT AND UNREPRESENTED APPLICANT COUNSEL Goi Hing Leung Mtre Véronique Talbot RESPONDENT COUNSEL HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Mtre Marie-Ève Mayer ( Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions ) On appeal from a judgment rendered on July 5, 2018 by the Honourable Thierry Nadon of the Court of Québec, Criminal Division , District of Montreal .

DESCRIPTION: Motion to cease representing the appellant. Motion to extend the time for appeal ( S. 678 (2) Cr.C .). Clerk at the hearing : Elisabeth Lepage Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING 9:37 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. Mr. Leung is present by videoconference. 9:38 Remarks by the judge. 9:39 Submissions by Mtre Talbot.

9:41 Comments by Mr. Leung. 9:42 Mr. Leung advises that he agrees to have his lawyer cease representing him. 9:43 Mtre Mayer has no representations on the motion to cease representing. 9:45 BY THE JUDGE: Judgment – see page 3. 9:49 Comments by Mtre Talbot. 9:50 Discussion between the judge and the parties concerning the continuation of the motion to extend the time for appeal and the assignment of counsel pursuant to s. 684 Cr.C . 9:54 Conclusion of the hearing. Elisabeth Lepage, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT Motion to cease representing the applicant [ 1 ] On July 5, 2018, Mr.

Justice Thierry Nadon of the Court of Québec, Criminal and Penal Division, found the applicant guilty of one count of attempted murder ( s. 239(1) (

b) Cr.C . ) and one count of aggravated assault ( s. 268 Cr. C. ) on the person of Patrick François, a conditional stay of proceedings having been ordered on the latter count. [ 2 ] By motion dated August 3, 2018 and filed in the Office of the Court on that same day, the applicant required an extension of the time within which to exercise his right to appeal the aforementioned judgment (either as of right or with leave).

Said motion, which was initially to be heard on August 28, 2018 was postponed several times, due to the fact that, despite her efforts, the applicant’s lawyer was unable to secure a legal aid mandate. The refusal of the Commission des services juridiques , on February 6, 2019, [1] was contested but maintained on May 19, 2019.

The applicant subsequently filed a complaint against his lawyer with the Barreau du Québec (which complaint was summarily dismissed at a later date). [ 3 ] In her motion dated January 14, 2020, the applicant’s lawyer, alleging an irreparable breach of trust due to the aforementioned circumstances, asks to be authorized to cease representing her client. Her client does not object, but indicates that he will, however, need legal assistance, being unable to conduct such a case by himself. [ 4 ] In light of the judgments rendered in R. v. Cunningham [2] and Charest v.

R. , [3] considering the breach of trust between client and counsel, the latter will be authorized to cease representing the former. FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 5 ] GRANTS the “Motion to cease representing the appellant” and authorizes Mtre Véronique Talbot to cease representing the applicant. MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. Order pursuant to s. 684 of the Criminal Code [ 6 ] The applicant’s file has not progressed in any way since August 29, 2018, which is regrettable (to say the least), and it is in the interest of justice that it be put back on track.

To this end, considering the nature of the case and that of the motion to extend the time for appeal, which the applicant is obviously unable to manage by himself, it appears desirable and indeed necessary that he should have legal assistance and that counsel should be assigned to him pursuant to s. 684(1) Cr.C . and s. 83.1 of the Legal Aid Act , [4] at least for the purposes of the motion to extend the time for appeal.

All applicable conditions having been fulfilled, [5] it shall be so ordered. [ 7 ] This order, however, cannot be finalized today since the appropriate steps to prepare for such a designation have not yet been taken. The motion to extend the time for appeal shall thus be postponed again in order for the Clerk of the Court to undertake the necessary process, with the cooperation of the applicant, the respondent and Mtre Talbot (who all agree), if need be.

[ 8 ] Mtre Talbot advised the undersigned that she still has the applicant’s file in her possession and that her former client, being incarcerated, prefers that she retain it until another lawyer is assigned. She agrees and will transfer the file when required to do so.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 9 ] ORDERS that counsel be assigned to the applicant, the nature and scope of his or her mandate to be discussed and established at a later date; [ 10 ] To this end, POSTPONES the file to February 26, 2020, at 9:30 AM, in Room RC.18, for the assignment process and the motion to extend the time for appeal to be dealt with by the judge sitting on that date; [ 11 ] ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to undertake the necessary steps in order that counsel be assigned to the applicant pursuant to s. 684(1) Cr.C . , with the cooperation of the respondent and the applicant, if need be, as well as that of the applicant’s former counsel.

MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A.