2017 QCCA 1484, 2017 QCCA 1484

Stuerm c. R. 2017 QCCA 1484 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-10-006442-170, 500-10-006454-175 (500-01-152951-171) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: September 25, 2017 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE louis rochette , J.A. nicholas kasirer , J.A. claude c. Gagnon , J.A. N o : 500-10-006442-170 APPELLANT ADRIAN STUERM IN PERSON RESPONDENTS COUNSEL HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Mtre MAXIME LACOURSIÈRE (Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales) ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC Mtre RUTH ARLESS-FRANDSEN (Bernard Roy) (Justice-Québec)

N o : 500-10-006454-175 APPLICANT ADRIAN STUERM IN PERSON RESPONDENTS COUNSEL HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Mtre MAXIME LACOURSIÈRE (Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales) ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC Mtre RUTH ARLESS-FRANDSEN (Bernard Roy) (Justice-Québec) 500-10-006442-170 On appeal from a conviction pronounced on May 10, 2017 by a jury presided by the Honourable Alexandre Boucher of the Superior Court, District of Montreal 500-10-006454-175 Motion for leave to appeal from a judgment rendered on May 18, 2017 by the Honourable Alexandre Boucher of the Superior Court, District of Montreal

DESCRIPTION : 500-10-006442-170 Motion to dismiss summarily an appeal referred to the panel of the Court by the registrar on July 28, 2017 (Section 685 Cr.C .) 500-10-006454-175 Motion for leave to appeal against the sentence 500-10-006442-170 and 500-10-006454-175 Motion of the Attorney General of Quebec to dismiss the argument raising the unconstitutionality of the sentence (Article 365 C.p.c .) Clerk: Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 9:42 Commencement of the hearing.

Identification of counsel. 9:42 Submissions by Mr Stuerm. 9:53 Recess. 9:57 Resumption of the hearing. 10:03 Submissions by Mtre Lacoursière. 10:05 Recess. 10:13 Resumption of the hearing. 10:13 By the Court: judgment – see page 3. Robert Osadchuck Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT

In respect of the verdict: [ 1 ] At paragraphs [5] and [6] of the interlocutory judgment at trial, the judge explained, in particular, that the appellant’s constitutional arguments were unfounded and frivolous in that he sought to impugn a regulation that was not in force at the time of the commission of the alleged offence. Furthermore, this is not a case of production of cannabis for medical reasons. [ 2 ] None of the appellant’s submissions before us suggest that the judge was mistaken in these views. [ 3 ] The Court is of the opinion that the appeal is frivolous and should be summarily dismissed.

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE COURT: [ 4 ] GRANTS the motion to dismiss; [ 5 ] DISMISSES the appeal. In respect of the sentence: [ 6 ] At paragraph [10] of his reasons, the sentencing judge concluded, after a careful weighing of the relevant factors, that a prison sentence of six months was just and reasonable in the circumstances.

His conclusion and the reasons given are unimpeachable given the applicable standards of review on appeal. [ 7 ] The Court notes that the question as to the unconstitutionality of the statutory minimum sentence was not raised at first instance and no evidence was led to sustain the appellant’s current submissions. [ 8 ] In any event, the sentence imposed coincides with the statutory minimum sentence fixed par Parliament to this offence. The judge took note of that fact, but observed that the six-month sentence he imposed «aurait été raisonnable sans égard au minimum prescrit par la loi» (paragraph [10]).

We agree. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to consider whether the statutory minimum sentence is constitutional. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS THE COURT: [ 9 ] GRANTS the respondent’s motion to dismiss the grounds for appeal based on the unconstitutionality of the minimum sentence for the offence; [ 10 ] DISMISSES the motion for leave to appeal; [ 11 ] ORDERS the appellant to surrender himself to the prison authorities within 72 hours of this judgment. LOUIS ROCHETTE, J.A. NICHOLAS KASIRER, J.A. CLAUDE C. GAGNON, J.A.