From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Crown Response to Rene Ouellet Certiorari appeal   
      
   JCT: After being misinformed that the Superior Court Judge of   
   first instance could not deal with his Quash Motion, he could   
   since others have, Rene agreed to return below to have it   
   heard but didn't know it meant he could not come back and the   
   judge hadn't told him. So he filed a motion for certiorari to   
   pull jurisdiction from the court below and to get into the   
   court above. It was dismissed and he appealed:   
   https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.fan.john-turmel/qxa9NzkZnBI   
      
   This is the Crown's Response:   
      
   COURT OF APPEAL   
   200-10-003325-177   
   QUEBEC   
      
   Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, District of   
   Quebec, rendered on the 11th of January, 2017, by the   
   honourable Serge Francoeur, j.s.c.   
      
   C.Q. : 200-01-180625-141   
   C.S. : 200-36-002452-167   
   C.A. : 200-10-003325-177   
      
   RENE OUELLET   
   APPELLANT - accused   
   v.   
   ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR QUEBEC   
   RESPONDENT - prosecutor   
      
                        RESPONDENT'S FACTUM   
      
   M. RENE OUELLET   
   Appellant   
      
   ME DANIEL BELANGER   
   Criminal and penal prosecuting attorney   
   Courthouse 300, boulevard Jean-Lesage, office 2.55   
   Respondent's counsel   
      
   PART I THE FACTS .........................................1   
   PART II THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE. ...........................3   
   PART III THE ARGUMENTS. ..................................4   
   PART IV THE CONCLUSIONS SOUGHT...........................10   
   PART V AUTHORITIES ......................................11   
   SCHEDULE III ............................................14   
   THE PROCEEDINGS   
   Transcript of the hearing of May 9, 2016 ................15   
   Transcript of the hearing of July 29, 2016 ..............27   
      
   CR: PART I : THE FACTS   
      
   [1] On January 15, 2014, the appellant was charged with   
   production of marijuana as well as possession with an intent   
   to trafficking, pursuant to section 7 and section 5 of the   
   Controlled Drugs and Substances Act1. The appellant first   
   appeared before the Quebec Provincial court on May 6, 2014.   
      
   JCT: He was charged under the MMAR.   
      
   CR: [2] From August 2014 to February 2016, the case was   
   postponed on numerous occasions, at the appellant's request.   
   At the time, counsel for the appellant, Me Richard Brouillard,   
   had requested a transfer to the Montreal district. The   
   appellant himself, thereby, committed to plead guilty as   
   charged in Montreal, signing a document to that effect.   
      
   [3] On February 2, 2016, the file was returned to the Quebec   
   district. The appellant, after several postponements, refused   
   to plead guilty in Montreal. More than two years after being   
   charged, and twenty-one months after his first appearance   
   before the court, the appellant had yet to elect.   
      
   JCT: So we won't count that part in any Jordan motion that it   
   took over 30 months.   
      
   CR: [4] On March 7, 2016, following the appellant's refusal to   
   elect, the honourable Carol St-Cyr, j.c.q., elected in order   
   to preserve the appellant's rights: he requested a preliminary   
   hearing followed by a trial before a judge and a jury.   
      
   JCT: What's interesting is that they are forcing to elect   
   before asking him if he pleads guilty! Imagine a guy who goes   
   through the whole preliminary inquiry, gets to jury trial, and   
   then says he always intended to plead guilty but no one asked.   
      
   CR: [5] The preliminary hearing was held on April 4, 2016, at   
   the end of which the honourable Christian Boulet, j.c.q.,   
   ordered for the appellant to stand trial, as charged. The case   
   was accordingly sent before the Quebec Superior court.   
      
   [6] On May 9, 2016, before the honourable Raymond Pronovost,   
   j.c.s., the appellant re-elected to be tried before the Quebec   
   Provincial court. A trial date was set the same day.   
      
   JCT: The Crown has ignored that the Court misinformed Rene   
   that he could not deal with his Quash Motion until the trial   
   and if he wanted it heard, he had to go below. Notice he could   
   not cite Rene's main point. And the Court did not inform the   
   self-represented Accused that he could not return above if he   
   re-elected to go below.   
      
   CR: [7] The appellant's trial opened on September 2nd, 2016,   
   before the honourable Johanne Roy, j.c.q. The appellant filed   
   a motion entitled "Application for Allard-Smith Beno Quash   
   motion to quash". Arguments were then submitted to the court   
   regarding this motion. At the time, the appellant was fully   
   allowed to present the legal arguments or evidence necessary   
   to support his motion.   
      
   JCT: Judge Johanne Roy was under the mis-impression that she   
   had to open to the trial to hear the quash motion. Or it would   
   have proven that earlier judges who had refused to adjudicate   
   the Motion to Amend the indictment had all been wrong.   
      
   [8] On September 16, the honourable judge Roy rejected the   
   motion and ruled that the trial should go forward.   
      
   JCT: And Rene wanted his jury trial so he moved to go to a   
   jury trial:   
      
   CR: [9] On October 11, 2016, the appellant filed an   
   application for a certiorari, asking that the ongoing trial be   
   transferred to the Superior court.   
      
   [10] On January 11, 2017, the honourable Serge Francoeur,   
   j.s.c., rejected the application for certiorari. The same day,   
   a notice of appeal was filed against this ruling, again   
   requesting this Court to return the ongoing trial before the   
   Superior court.   
      
   PART II : THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE   
      
   We respectfully suggest the issues arising from the   
   appellant's factum can be summarized in the following manner:   
      
   ISSUE 1 : Does the alleged violation in the re-election   
   process amount to a jurisdictional error or an error of law on   
   the face of the record?   
      
   The alleged violation in the re-election process, if   
   established, would not amount to a jurisdictional error or an   
   error of law on the face of the record. It could provide   
   grounds for an appeal, in case of a conviction.   
      
   JCT: He does not define what "the violation in the re-election   
   process" is.   
      
   CR: ISSUE 2 : Was the re-election done in a valid manner?   
      
   JCT: We have submitted that 1) misinforming him his Quash   
   Motion could not be heard until the jury trial and 2) not   
   telling him he could not come back, meant his re-election was   
   not done in a valid manner. He was misinformed and   
   underinformed about his options.   
      
   CR: The transcripts of May 9, 2016, attest to the validity of   
   the re-election process. The Superior court judge was diligent   
   in allowing the appellant to elect in an informed manner.   
      
   JCT: Telling him a Motion to Amend needed to be heard at the   
   jury trial when he should have done it right there, and then   
   telling him it could only be heard quickly by re-electing   
   without informing he couldn't come back wasn't diligent.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)