2022 QCCA 964, 2022 QCCA 964

F.H. c. R. 2022 QCCA 964 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-10-007806-225 , 500-10-007816-224 ( 500-36-010191-222 ) (500-36-009953-210) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: July 6, 2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MARIE-JOSÉE HOGUE, J.C.A. FRÉDÉRIC BACHAND, J.C.A. PETER KALICHMAN, J.C.A. No.: 500-10-007806-225 (500-36-010191-222) APPELLANT F. H. ABSENT AND Unrepresented RESPONDENT COUNSEL HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Mtre marc-antoine lavallée ( Director of Penal and Criminal Prosecutions ) Absent No.: 500-10-007816-224 (500-36-009953-210) APPELLANT F. H.

ABSENT AND Unrepresented RESPONDENT COUNSEL HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Mtre marc-antoine lavallée ( Director of Penal and Criminal Prosecutions ) Absent 500-10-007806-225

On appeal from a judgment rendered on April 1, 2022 by the Honourable Éliane B. Perreault of the Superior Court , District of Montreal . 500-10-007816-224 On appeal from a judgment rendered on April 26, 2022 by the Honourable Hélène Di Salvo of the Superior Court, District of Montreal. DESCRIPTION: 500-10-007806-225: Motion to dismiss an appeal ( Sections 683(3) and 839 of the Criminal Code ,

Section 81 of the Rules of the Court of appeal of Quebec in Criminal Matters ,

article 365 of the Code of Civil procedure ). 500-10-007816-224: Motion to dismiss an appeal ( Sections 683(3) and 839 of the Criminal Code ,

Section 81 of the Rules of the Court of appeal of Quebec in Criminal Matters ,

article 365 of the Code of Civil procedure ). Clerk at the hearing : Lesly Ramos Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 9:37 Commencement of the hearing. Continuation of the hearing held on July 4, 2022. The parties were excused from appearing in Court. BY THE COURT: Judgment – see page 4. 9:38 Conclusion of the hearing. Lesly Ramos, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The respondent seeks the

summary dismissal of both appeals on the ground that the appellant failed to seek leave to appeal. [ 2 ] The respondent is correct in contending that, in

summary conviction proceedings, leave is required to appeal before this Court a judgment of the Superior Court sitting in appeal: section 839(1) Cr.C . While the appellant claims that he attempted to file an application for leave to appeal in file n° 500-10-007816-224, no such motion appears on the Court’s docket. Moreover, it is undisputed that the appellant never attempted to file an application for leave to appeal in file n° 500-10-007806-225. [ 3 ] The respondent is also correct in contending that the Court can summarily dismiss an appeal that was improperly initiated: Duhamel c.

R. , 2006 QCCA 1081 , para. 16 ; Fleuranvil c. R. , 2012 QCCA 56 ; Ouellet c. R. , 2017 QCCA 435 ; M.E. c. R. , 2018 QCCA 1544 , para. 3 .

[ 4 ] Since the appeals have been improperly initiated, the respondent’s motions to dismiss are well-founded. [ 5 ] The Court adds that, had leave to appeal been sought in compliance with applicable rules, it would not have been granted because the appellant’s grounds of appeal in both cases fall well short of the stringent standard set out in section 839(1) Cr.C . and the caselaw relating thereto (see e.g. Bouchard c. R. , 2011 QCCA 30 (judge alone), para. 5-10 ; Roberge c. Directrice des poursuites criminelles et pénales , 2018 QCCA 885 (judge alone), para. 3 ; Vorias v.

R. , 2019 QCCA 452 (judge alone), para. 1-2 ; Vachon c. R. , 2020 QCCA 1775 , para. 9-13 ; Laquerre c. R. , 2021 QCCA 157 (judge alone), para. 11 ; Chouinard c. R. , 2022 QCCA 556 (judge alone), para. 4 ; Gauthier c. R. , 2022 QCCA 859 (judge alone), para. 7 ). FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 6 ] GRANTS the motions to dismiss in both cases (500-10-007806-225 and 500-10-007816-224); [ 7 ] DISMISSES both appeals (500-10-007806-225 and 500-10-007816-224). MARIE-JOSÉE HOGUE, J.C.A. FRÉDÉRIC BACHAND, J.C.A. PETER KALICHMAN, J.C.A.