R v. Sayer., 2019 QCCA 1354

Cardin c. R. 2019 QCCA 1354 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-10-007067-190 (540-73-000405-177, 540-36-001051-191) DATE: August 9, 2019 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE ROBERT M. MAINVILLE, J.A. PATRICK HEALY, J.A. LUCIE FOURNIER, J.A. PIERRE CARDIN JEAN-MARC PAQUIN APPELLANTS — Accused v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN RESPONDENT — Prosecutor JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The appellants are charged with tax fraud and tax evasion. [ 2 ] A preliminary inquiry was held on December 12 and 13, 2018, at the conclusion of which they were committed to stand trial.

The proceedings were subsequently postponed on numerous occasions at the request of the appellants. [ 3 ] On April 5, 2019, the appellants submitted to the Superior Court judge entrusted with the management of the proceedings a Notice of Application for Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Praetor and replevin) Seeking Relief Pursuant to UNDRIP . It merits mention that the appellants are not detained. [ 4 ] In this application, the appellants claim to be “ Sovereign Metis and Sovereign Non-Status Kinakwii ”.

They assert that Canada illegally provided them at birth with “ the Corporate CANADA name Jean Mark PAQUIN and Pierre CARDIN, which enables CANADA to access the S.I.N. Corporate Bond issued by CANADA unlawfully, shortly after the Applicant’s live birth, without their consent ”. They further assert that this “ Corporate bonding system is a violation of International Human Rights, and the consequent tax on wages, and the treatment of each Applicant is tantamount to a Crime against Humanity Act, per that Federal Act of 2000 and Cultural Genocide of the Indigenous Nations of Turtle Island ”.

They add that the question they raise is that “ of which laws are to be implemented, CANADA the Corporation or Kinakwii or International Laws between nations ”. [ 5 ] The conclusions they seek in this application are the following: 1. The Petitioners be released, forthwith, from the jurisdiction of CANADA. 2. The cost of this Petition of $10,000, payable to the Kinakwii Legal Department. 3. Punitive damages in the amount of $390,000 or such sum the Honourable Court deemed just, for the violation of the International Human rights of the Petitioners, per their fellow Indigenous defendants in R v. Sayer. 4.

The transfer of the matter to the Kinakwii Indigenous Tribunal. [ 6 ] On April 10, 2019, the Honourable Madame Justice Johanne St-Gelais of the Superior Court, District of Laval, made the following orders in file 540-73-000405-177: M. Cardin et M. Paquin ont préparé une requête relativement à un aspect qui concerne la chose jugée et un deuxième aspect qui concerne les délais préinculpatoires (Jordan). La Cour ordonne le repiquage audio de l’audience du 27 janvier 2019 dans les dossiers 540-01-0066645-147 et 540-01-068057-150.

Les deux requêtes de la défense devront être envoyées au plus tard le vendredi le 10 mai 2019 à midi (12h00) par courriel à la poursuite et à l’adjointe de l’honorable juge St-Gelais. Les requêtes originales seront déposées en salle de Cour le 13 mai 2019.

La requête en habeas corpus va suivre au 13 mai 2019. Date de procès réservée : 24 février 2020 pour 6 semaines. Procès bilingue. Copie du procès-verbal à toutes les parties. [ 7 ] That same day, in file 540-36-001051-191, Justice St-Gelais made the following order: La requête en habeas corpus suit le dossier 540-73-000405-177. La Cour conserve le dossier. * * * * * [ 8 ] On May 3, 2019, the appellants filed with the registry of the Court a notice that they were appealing the April 10, 2019 judgments. The grounds of appeal they raise and the relief they seek are set out as follows: THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1.

The Metis and Non-Status Kinakwii Nation have a prior claim to the lands of Turtle Island than the Europeans and subsequently CANADA. 2. The Crown has a duty per the SCC in Tsilhqot’in v. BC to commence bona fide consultation once the Land Claim is made. 3. The Justice failed: A. To read the Habeas Corpus Application before the hearing; B. To Order the Crown to commence the consultations; C. To require the Crown to produce a Factum in a timely fashion; D. To allow the Defendants’ Legal Leader to argue the case, in violation of UNDRIP. 4. Such other grounds as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court permit.

THE APPELLANTS ASK THAT: The appeal be allowed; The Justice’s Order be set aside and the relief regarding the Appellants’ land claim be granted. [ 9 ] On May 28, 2019, the Crown petitioned the Court for

summary dismissal of the appeal under subsection 685(1) of the Criminal Code on the ground that it is both frivolous and vexatious. [ 10 ] On June 4, 2019, the Court's registrar concluded that the appeal satisfied prima facie the conditions of subsection 685(1) of the Criminal Code for

summary dismissal, referred the matter to the Court and set the date of August 7, 2019 for a hearing. That hearing has since been held with all parties in attendance. * * * * * [ 11 ] It is apparent from the record that the judgments issued by Justice St-Gelais on April 10, 2019 concern the orderly management of the proceedings. In essence, the judge set out a calendar under which the appellants were to produce the two other applications they had announced.

The judge further ordered that Application for Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Praetor and replevin) Seeking Relief Pursuant to UNDRIP be continued to May 13, 2019. This is not a case in which the Superior Court would be refusing to deal in a timely fashion with a true habeas corpus application since the appellants are not detained. In essence, the judgments of April 10, 2019 simply concern case management. [ 12 ] It is trite law that no appeal to this Court from a case management order may be pursued under the Criminal Code .

There is therefore no judgment subject to appeal to this Court. [ 13 ] Though the appellants refer to

article 352 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure in their notice of appeal - an

article dealing with appeals in civil matters – their application and the judgments they seek to appeal concern a criminal trial. In any event,

article 32 of the Code of civil procedure specifically indicates that “[c]ase management measures relating to the conduct of a proceeding […] cannot be appealed .” [ 14 ] As a result, the Court has no jurisdiction to hear or decide the appellants’ appeal of the April 10, 2019 case management judgments. As a result, the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. [ 15 ] In light of this Court’s lack of jurisdiction with respect to the present appeal, we abstain from commenting on the appellants’ application. If the appellants wish to pursue their application they must do so in the Superior Court.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 16 ] DECLARES the appeal irregular for lack of jurisdiction;

[ 17 ] DISMISSES the appeal. ROBERT M. MAINVILLE, J.A. PATRICK HEALY, J.A. LUCIE FOURNIER, J.A. Pierre Cardin Jean-Marc Paquin Unrepresented Mtre Marie-Ève Trudel PUBLIC PROSECUTION SERVICE OF CANADA For respondent Date of hearing: August 7, 2019