2013 QCCA 543, 2013 QCCA 543

Chemama c.

R. 2013 QCCA 543 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-10-005070-121, 500-10-005313-125, 500-10-005314-123 ( 500-36-005880-110, 500-01-049364-109, 500-01-048577-107, 500-01-066338-119, 500-01- 049470-104, 500-36-006319-126, 500-36-006313-129, 500-36-006430-121, 500-36-006438- 124, 500-36-006196-128, 500-36-006286-127, 500-36-006287-125, 500-36-006298-122, 500-36-06299-120, 500-36-006301-124, 500-36-006302-122, 500-36-005968-113, 500-36- 005919-116, 500-36-006333-127, 500-01-049336-107, 500-01-057560-119 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: March 21, 2013 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS DOYON, J.A.

NICHOLAS KASIRER, J.A. JEAN BOUCHARD, J.A. APPELLANT ATTORNEY ERICH CHEMAMA Personally (via videoconference) Mtre Daniel Santoro (via conference call) Amicus curiae RESPONDENT ATTORNEY HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Mtre Matthew Ferguson Criminal and Penal Prosecuting Attorney IMPLEADED PARTY ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC Mtre Pierre R. Latulippe Direction générale des aff. jur. et légis. Motion for assignment of counsel (500-10- 005070-121). Hearing for determining whether the Appellant ought to be declared a quarrelsome litigant. Clerk: Marcelle Desmarais Courtroom: Antonio-Lamer HEARING 9 h 30 Continuation of the hearing of March 18, 2013. Judgment – see page 3. Marcelle Desmarais Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT

[ 1 ] The Court is seized of a motion brought by Erich Chemama pursuant to

section 684 Cr. C. [ 2 ] The appellant has asked that counsel be assigned to him by the Court to act on his behalf. He submits that the interests of justice so require and that his own financial means are limited. Counsel had previously been assigned to him in another file by the Honourable Jean-François Buffoni of the Superior Court in February 2013. [ 3 ] At that time, Buffoni, J. considered the extent of the appellant's financial means and concluded that, even if the appellant was ineligible for Legal Aid by reason of the his spouse's income, fees for his legal counsel should be paid for by the State.

In addition to the other evidence filed in this regard on appeal, the Court has taken into account the conclusions of Buffoni, J. in respect of the appellant's financial circumstances for the purposes of this judgment. [ 4 ] The Court has also taken into account, in particular, the following factors in considering the appellant's motion: the nature of the appeals; the range of questions in dispute; the financial circumstances of the appellant; the undertakings he gave at the hearing of this motion; Mtre Daniel Santoro's agreement to the arrangement between himself and the appellant, which agreement was communicated to the Court by Mtre Santoro at the hearing; the fact that Mtre Santoro has been assigned as counsel to the appellant by the Ontario Court of Appeal; and the fact that the appeals brought by the appellant are still in their preliminary stages. [ 5 ] On balance, the Court is of the view that the appellant has met the requirements of s. 684 Cr.

C. , but that counsel should only be assigned for limited purposes at present.

FOR THESE REASONS , the Court: [ 6 ] GRANTS the motion in part; [ 7 ] DESIGNATES Mtre Daniel Santoro, a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada, to act as counsel on behalf of the appellant, on condition that Mtre Santoro obtain the requisite authorization from the Bar of Quebec; [ 8 ] DESIGNATES Mtre Santoro for the sole purpose of advising the appellant on whether his appeals have a reasonable chance of success; [ 9 ] DECLARES that Mtre Santoro shall be remunerated according to the approved tariff pursuant to the Act respecting legal aid and the provision of other legal services ; [ 10 ] ACKNOWLEDGES the appellant's undertaking not to file any document in the Court except through the intermediary of Mtre Santoro, on pain of this order being rescinded; Mtre Santoro has accepted to take on this role; [ 11 ] ACKNOWLEDGES that the appellant has declared, at the hearing on this motion, that he waives his privilege thereby permitting Mtre Santoro to communicate the results to the Court, and asks Mtre Santoro to communicate to the Court the results of his evaluation of the appellant's files on appeal; [ 12 ] ACKNOWLEDGES the undertaken given by the appellant to follow Mtre Santoro's recommendations; [ 13 ] POSTPONES the decision as to whether or not counsel should be assigned to the appellant pursuant to s. 684 Cr.

C . to plead the appeals on the merits, should those appeals proceed, until after such time as Mtre Santoro communicates to the Court the evaluation referred to in paragraph [11] herein; and [ 14 ] DECLARES that it is not necessary at present to decide the matter as to whether the appellant is a vexatious litigant given the conclusions of this judgment. FRANÇOIS DOYON, J.A. NICHOLAS KASIRER, J.A. JEAN BOUCHARD, J.A.