Case information

Criminal law — Appeals — Powers of Court of Appeal — Non-compliance with rules — Abuse of process Conviction for criminal harassment, threats, unlawful cultivation of cannabis and breach of release conditions — Superior Court recognizing that applicant had continually ignored court rules despite repeated warnings and additional time — Superior Court holding that these repeated violations on their own justified dismissal of appeal under rules — Court of Appeal dismissing motion for leave to appeal — Whether application for leave to appeal raises question of public importance — Rules of Practice of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, Criminal Division, 2002, SI/2002-46, s. 36(c).

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE)

A Court of Québec judge convicted Mr. Cusson of offences involving criminal harassment of two victims and threats against one of them, and also of unlawful cultivation of cannabis and breach of his release conditions. Mr. Cusson represented himself at trial.

When Mr. Cusson challenged the guilty verdict, the Superior Court held that this was an exceptional case in which it should exercise the power set out in s. 36(c) of the Rules of Practice of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, Criminal Division, 2002 (“Rules”), which gives the court the power to dismiss the appeal of an appellant who has not conformed with the requirements prescribed by law or by the Rules. Much like at first instance, the Superior Court found that Mr. Cusson had flooded the court with various proceedings that did not comply with the Rules or with the time limits imposed by the court. The Superior Court dismissed the appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, because it was of the view that the objective was to have all the questions raised by Mr. Cusson reviewed again, which was not the Court of Appeal’s role, and because Mr. Cusson had not shown any obvious error that caused injustice to him or that could have a significant impact on the administration of justice.

---

---