COURT OF APPEAL OF COUR D'APPEL DU NEW BRUNSWICK NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK 26-13-CA CLAUDE JACK PLOURDE APPELLANT CLAUDE JACK PLOURDE APPELANT - and - - et - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN RESPONDENT SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE INTIMÉE Plourde v. R., 2014 NBCA 38 Plourde c.

R., 2014 NBCA 38 CORAM: The Honourable Justice Larlee The Honourable Justice Deschênes The Honourable Justice Richard CORAM : l'honorable juge Larlee l'honorable juge Deschênes l'honorable juge Richard Appeal from a decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench: January 21, 2013 Appel d'une décision de la Cour du Banc de la Reine : le 21 janvier 2013 History of Case: Historique de la cause : Decision under appeal: Unreported Décision frappée d’appel : inédite Appeal heard: May 20, 2014 Appel entendu : le 20 mai 2014 Judgment rendered: June 5, 2014 Jugement rendu : le 5 juin 2014

Counsel at hearing: For the appellant: Claude Jack Plourde appeared in person For the respondent: B. Bannon Morrissy Avocats à l'audience : Pour l’appelant : Claude Jack Plourde a comparu en personne Pour l’intimée : B. Bannon Morrissy THE COURT The motion to adduce new evidence and the application for leave to appeal the conviction are dismissed. LA COUR La motion en présentation d’une nouvelle preuve et la demande d’autorisation d’interjeter appel de la déclaration de culpabilité sont rejetées.

The judgment of the Court was delivered by THE COURT [ 1 ] Claude Jack Plourde was convicted in Provincial Court for illegal possession of moose meat, the offence set out in s. 58 of the Fish and Wildlife Act , S.N.B. 1980, c. F-14.1. His appeal against conviction to the

Summary Conviction Appeal Court was dismissed on January 21, 2013. He now seeks leave to appeal to this Court. [ 2 ] Section 116(1) of the Provincial Offences Procedure Act, S.N.B. 1987, c. P-22.1, makes s. 839 of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 applicable in this case.

Section 839 provides that an appeal to this Court from a decision of the

Summary Conviction Appeal Court is possible only with leave and only on a ground “that involves a question of law alone.” [ 3 ] None of the grounds of appeal Mr. Plourde wishes to advance before this Court raise questions of law alone. [ 4 ] At the hearing of the appeal, Mr. Plourde sought to adduce fresh evidence, as he had before the

Summary

Conviction Appeal Court. His motion to adduce new evidence is hereby dismissed because, with due diligence, the evidence could have been adduced at trial. More importantly, even if believed, it could not, when taken with the other evidence, have affected the result . [ 5 ] For these reasons, Mr. Plourde’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed. _____________________________ M.E.L. LARLEE, J.A. _____________________________ ALEXANDRE DESCHÊNES, J.A. _____________________________ J.C. MARC RICHARD, J.A.