From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Rene Ouellet Certiorari Appeal for Jury Trial Factum   
      
   JCT: On Jan 25 2017, Rene had a teleconference call with a   
   lady judge of the Quebec City Court of Appeal and the Crown   
   where she sped things up for his appeal of the nixing of a   
   jury trial. She was pleased to find  out it wasn't going to be   
   very long and allowed both parties to file a Factum and slated   
   the hearing for April 7 at 9:30a.   
      
   So here's Rene's factum laying out his 20 minute half-hour:   
      
      
   CANADA   
   PROVINCE OF QUEBEC                QUEBEC COURT OF APPEAL   
   DISTRICT OF QUEBEC                  (Criminal Chamber)   
   LOCALITE: QUEBEC   
   PC NO: 200-01-180625-141        Between   
   SC NO: 200-36-002452-267        Rene Ouellet   
   CA NO: 200-10-003325-177        Applicant/APPELLANT   
                                   -and-   
                                   Attorney General for Quebec   
                                   Respondent/RESPONDENT   
      
      
                         APPELLANT'S FACTUM   
           On appeal from the January 12 2017 decision of   
          Superior Court Justice Serge Francoeur in Quebec   
      
                         TABLE OF CONTENTS   
   FACTUM                                                 1   
      
   SCHEDULE I                                             x   
   Jan 12 Judgment of Francoeur J.C.S.   
      
   SCHEDULE II   
   a) Notice of Appeal 2 pages; write Schedule III on it.   
   b) Indictment   
   c) S.601 Motion to Quash   
      
   SCHEDULE III   
   Exhibits and Depositions: None   
      
   ATTESTATION   
      
                               FACTUM   
      
   DIVISION 1 - FACTS   
      
   1. The Accused was charged with production of marijuana   
   contrary to S.7(1) of the CDSA.   
      
   2. Accused filed a pre-plea Motion under S.601 to Amend the   
   indictment by quashing the S.7 count to be dealt with by the   
   judge of first instance. The Motion cites the actual Section   
   601 that allows any judge to amend the indictment and the   
   ruling by Ontario Superior Court Justice Rogin in R. v. J.P.   
   confirming there was no constitutional question in a motion to   
   amend.   
      
   3. On Feb 19 2016 Judge Johanne Roy ruled that the S.601   
   motion was constitutional and had to be heard by the Trial   
   Judge though no statute is being challenged under the Charter   
   and sent the Accused to Preliminary Inquiry. Notices of No   
   Constitutional Question were served on all attorneys general.   
      
   4. On April 20 2016 at the Preliminary Inquiry, Judge   
   Christian Boulet also refused to adjudicate the Quash motion   
   and ruled sufficient evidence for trial. When the Accused   
   refused to elect until the amendment of the indictment had   
   been ruled upon, the judge ordered the clerk enter an election   
   of "trial by Superior Court judge an jury."   
      
   5. On May 9 2016, Superior Court Justice Pronovost of first   
   instance also held that the motion could only heard by the   
   Trial Judge before a jury and misinformed the Accused he   
   should re-opt his plea to Provincial Court to deal with his   
   Motion. Accused agreed to return below not for adjudication of   
   the trial but of the Quash Motion.   
      
   6. On July 29 2016, Judge Alain Morand ascertained that there   
   was no constitutional issue and booked the S.601 Motion to   
   Quash for adjudication before the Accused "orients his   
   plea." Due to time constraints, the motion to Quash was   
   adjourned for the first possible hearing to Sep 2 2016.   
      
   7. On Sep 2 2016, Judge Johanne Roy was under the impression   
   that she had to hearing the trial because she thought the   
   motion was constitutional and seemed unaware of the pre-plea   
   motion to Quash. Without taking plea or election, she started   
   the trial in order to hear the "post-plea" motion to Quash.   
      
   8. On Sep 16 201, Judge Roy dismissed the Quash motion and set   
   a date to proceed with the trial. But the Accused should then   
   get to orient his defence and now wanted to be returned to the   
   jurisdiction of the Superior Court for plea pursuant to the   
   previous election for judge and jury entered by Judge Boulet.   
      
   9. Accused then found out that his agreement to return below   
   to adjudicate the Quash Motion would be taken as his   
   agreement to return below for trial which could not be   
   reversed. The self-represented Accused was unaware when he was   
   ceding his jury trial to have his Quash motion adjudicated   
   first after Judge Pronovost erred in refusing to deal with it.   
      
   10. Provincial Court has no jurisdiction to try the Accused   
   without plea when the election was entered as "Judge and Jury"   
   and Accused was not informed by the judge of the consequence   
   of treating return for Quash Motion as return for Trial.   
      
   11. On Jan 11 2017, Quebec Superior Court Justice Francoeur   
   dismissed an application for  Certiorari to remove   
   jurisdiction from Judge Roy and place it with Superior Court   
   ruling that the "non-constitutional" S.601 motion to amend had   
   to heard by the Trial Judge and that the Accused had been   
   given sufficient explanations of the consequences of re-opting   
   and now that Judge Roy started the trial below, no one can   
   stop it.   
      
   12. On Jan 11 2017, the Applicant filed Notice of Appeal.   
      
      
   DIVISION 2 - ISSUES IN DISPUTE   
      
   13. A) Is a S.601 motion to amend a count in an indictment a   
   constitutional issue adjudicated only by the Trial Judge?   
      
   14. B) If not constitutional, is a S.601 motion to amend a   
   count in an indictment a non-constitutional issue that can   
   only be adjudicated by the Judge of First Instance or Trial   
   Judge?   
      
   15. C) Can Superior Court hear a S.601 motion only with a   
   jury?   
      
   16. D) Is the fact the Appellant did not know that Re-Opting   
   to go below to have his Quash Motion heard meant he was giving   
   up his election for Trial by Judge and Jury indication that   
   Judge Pronovost had not given the Accused sufficient   
   information about the consequences of his Re-Option?   
      
   DIVISION 3 - ARGUMENT   
      
   A) IS S.601 MOTION TO AMEND CONSTITUTIONAL   
      
   17. Right in the Notice of Motion is:   
       JURISDICTION   
      
       1. S.601 states:   
       "Amending defective indictment or count   
       (1) An objection to an indictment preferred under this   
       Part or to a count in an indictment, for a defect apparent   
       on its face, shall be taken by motion to quash the   
       indictment or count before the accused enters a plea...   
       Question of law   
       (6) The question whether an order to amend an indictment   
       or a count thereof should be granted or refused is a   
       question of law.   
       Definition of "court"   
       (10) In this section, "court" means a court, judge,   
       justice or provincial court judge acting in summary   
       conviction proceedings or in proceedings on indictment.   
      
       2. S.601 says an objection to amend a defective indictment   
       must be made pre-plea to "a court" of first instance with   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)