TURMEL: Ray Turmels 3 Quebec Court of Appeals today CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL QUEBEC COURT OF APPEAL NO: (Criminal Chamber) 500-10-005536-139 500-10-005550-130 500-10-005559-149 (700-36-000999-135) Between Raymond Turmel Appellant -and- Attorney General for Quebec Respondent -and- Attorney General for Canada Respondent WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS OVERVIEW 1. Ray Turmel, a MMAR Marijuana Exemptee, was charged with production of marijuana with too many plants while possessing only 4Kg toward his 11Kg storage limit. The plant limit is being challenged as an unconstitutional limitation when storage amount should have been the parameter. 2. A Preliminary Inquiry was scheduled for the presentation of evidence. Applicant filed a challenge to the counts in the indictment before wasting time on evidence about counts that may not remain. 3. A S.601 Motion to Quash (to Amend to zero charges) was filed. The Crown argued that deciding on what would be in the indictment before presenting evidence was putting the cart before the horse. In Quebec, the evidence is heard first and if the indictment is later amended, then that evidence the court wasted its time on could then be rejected with the quashed count. 4. In Ontario, fixing the counts in the indictment comes before presentation of the evidence. In R. v. Turmel [1994] the motion to Quash was heard by Judge Nadelle within a week, and then the trial was held on the indictment a year later. So even if in Quebec, the Crown presents evidence before the indictment is amended, in Ontario, the indictment is amended before evidence is presented. 5. The Crown called setting the indictment before hearing the evidence on it putting the cart before the horse. Accused argued it worked the other way but so far, all the judges have accepted that putting the horse before the cart means hearing the evidence before the indictment is amended. From an Ontario judges perspective, hearing evidence before fixing the indictment is putting the cart-before-the-horse. 6. The Quash Motion was struck from the docket by Provincial Judge #1 as being an issue for the Superior Court. 7. Since the Accused was going to end up in Superior Court eventually upon election, the Motion to Quash was filed and was rejected by Superior Court Judge #1 for no jurisdiction without a Notice of Constitutional Question. 8. The Motion to Quash was filed with a properly-served Notice of Constitutional Question informing all provincial Attorneys General that NO constitutional issue was being raised. 9. The Motion further pointed out the judge in R. v. J.P. (2003) explained why S.601 Motions to Quash had no constitutional issue being raised. Its not trying to strike down a bad law, its trying to establish a bad law was already struck down in Parker and Krieger is unknown to law, not unconstitutional! 10. Superior Court Judge #2 now rejected the motion with Notice of NO Constitutional Question for no jurisdiction due to a S.601 motion being reserved for the trial judge alone. 11. Another Motion to Quash was filed with an extra point noting that S.601 says an indictment may be amended by the first judge the Accused runs into. Superior Court Judge #3 then ruled he could not over- rule the decision of Judge #2 even if any judge could hear it. It had now been ruled that only the trial judge could hear it. In Quebec, anyway. 12. All three dismissals were appealed and are subject of this hearing. There had been no objection to the Crowns motion to dismiss once the Accused had managed to re-file a new Motion to Amend (dropped the word Quash, Amend to Zero) and now, it got filed for hearing on May 22 2014 before the Preliminary Inquiry on July 18 2014. 13. Accused expected these appeals to be mooted now that the Quash Motion was going to set the indictment before the presentation of any evidence (Accused might hire a lawyer) at the Preliminary Inquiry. 14. Accused was going to ask if the Court could order a few thousand dollars for the expenses of bringing my counsel from Brantford 6 or 8 times with commensurate other costs and my travel and wasted time on the Crowns convincing the courts to get the Cart and Horse analogy wrong. 15. But on May 22, Accused was heard by Provincial Judge #2 who ruled that 1) the Accused had failed to file his Notice of No Constitutional Question again, and 2) S.601 said it could only he heard by the trial judge. 16. Accused pointed out that if he lost his motion to Amend to Quash and the law was ruled still valid, he had no defence and might want to plead guilty. Too bad. The judge ruled that at this stage, theres no indictment. 16. So evidence must be presented at Preliminary Inquiry on no indictment first. Accused may not challenge a count in the indictment if theres no indictment, just hear the evidence on what the Accused cant be told is in the indictment until before it reaches his Trial Judge. 17. So Accused thought these appeals had been mooted by the scheduling of the Quash Horse before the Preliminary Inquiry Cart. And now finds these appeals unmooted by the Preliminary Inquiry Cart being once again put before the Quash Horse. 18. Dismissal of a Motion to Quash may not be appealed until the Appeal against the Trial decision. These issues will be back before the court even if Accused sits mute through the process to await the adjudication on the cart and the horse which is now fortuitously before this court. 19. All it would take would be a substantial Order for Costs from the Crown for wasting all our time with an angry glare for him to set the Quash Horse before the Preliminary Inquiry Cart below. FOR THESE REASONS, MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT GRANT the present plea for costs and maybe an Order for the Crown to brush up on Carts and Horses. Dated at Montreal on ___________ 2014 _________________________ For the Appellant:
Posted on: Sun, 08 Jun 2014 11:39:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015