2022 QCCA 1341, 2022 QCCA 1341

Vdovin c. R. 2022 QCCA 1341 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-10-007753-229 ( 500-36-009928-212 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: September 28, 2022 THE HONOURABLE PETER KALICHMAN, J.A. APPLICANT Anatoliy Vdovin ABSENT AND UNREPRESENTED RESPONDENT COUNSEL HIS MAJESTY THE KING Mtre Régis Boisvert ( Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions ) By videoconference DESCRIPTION: Motion to extend time for appeal ( Article 678 (2) of the Criminal Code ). Clerk at the hearing : Anne Dumont Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING 9:32 Commencement of the hearing.

Continuation of the hearing held on September 27, 2022. The parties were excused from appearing in Court. BY THE JUDGE : Judgment – see page 3. Conclusion of the hearing.

Anne Dumont, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Applicant presents a motion to extend the delay in which to seek leave to appeal a judgment rendered on December 20, 2021 by the Superior Court (the Honourable Alexandre Boucher). The Superior Court judge dismissed the Applicant’s appeal of: (

i) a judgment rendered on March 19, 2021 by the Court of Quebec (the Honourable Danièle Côté), finding him guilty of one count of criminal harassment and one count of uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm; and (ii) a judgment rendered by Justice Côté, J.C.Q. on November 5, 2021, sentencing him to a conditional stay of proceedings on the count of criminal harassment and 12 months of imprisonment on the count of uttering threats. [ 2 ] After having been postponed numerous times, the Motion was presentable on July 19, 2022 but the Applicant refused to participate.

The judge placed the Motion on the roll for September 20, 2022 and ordered that the transcripts from the sentencing hearing in the Court of Quebec be prepared. [ 3 ] At the presentation of the Motion on September 20, 2022, the Applicant once again did not appear. On that date, the following was noted: [1] CONSIDERING the Applicant’s Motion to extend the time limit in which to appeal; [2] CONSIDERING that on its face, the Motion is incomplete in that: (

i) no specific time extension is requested; and (ii) the Applicant wishes to appeal from a decision of the Superior Court, dismissing an appeal of a judgment rendered by the Court of Quebec, but does not seek permission to do so; [3] CONSIDERING that the Applicant represents himself; FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [4] POSTPONES the hearing of the Motion to extend the time limit in which to appeal to September 28, 2022, so that the Applicant has an opportunity to complete the Motion and to bring a motion for leave to appeal should he wish to do so. [ 4 ] At the hearing of the Motion, which took place today and not September 28, 2022, the Applicant indicated that he requires a delay until June, 2024 to file his appeal because he will be in prison until then and we will be unable to hire a lawyer.

According to the Applicant, he has made every effort to find a lawyer but they have either refused to represent him or have insisted on an up-front payment that he cannot afford. *** [ 5 ] In order to extend the time limit in which to appeal, an applicant must demonstrate: (

i) the intention to appeal within the delays; (ii) serious grounds of appeal; and (iii) reasonable diligence in exercising the right of appeal within the delays. [1] [ 6 ] The Applicant does not meet the requirements of this test. [ 7 ] Firstly, the Applicant has failed to establish that he has acted with reasonable diligence in pursuing his right to appeal. This is the third time that the Motion was made presentable in the past several months and the first time he has appeared in Court over that period.

Furthermore, even though the minutes of the September 20, 2022 hearing were sent to him and he was thus advised that permission to appeal was required, he has neither made a motion for permission to appeal nor indicated his intention to do so. He now indicates that it will be roughly two more years before he will be able to file his appeal. While it may indeed be difficult for the Applicant to find a lawyer, his actions to date coupled with the time delay he is requesting, do not satisfy the requirement of due diligence. [ 8 ] Second, the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that he has serious grounds of appeal.

The only grounds that he references in his Motion are factual in nature whereas his appeal – if he were to bring a motion for permission to appeal – could only be predicated on the existence of legal errors. FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 9 ] DISMISSES the Motion to extend the time for appeal. PETER KALICHMAN, J.A.