From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: Yes, the Clerk of the Court has a role to play in some   
   motions that want to throw out an appeal as frivolous and   
   vexatious. Greffe-Adjoint Julie Denvroede presiding.   
      
   S.685 of the Criminal Code says that the Crown has to make the   
   motion to the Court Clerk who then refers it to a full panel   
   for dismissal summarily. Of course, this is useful for appeals   
   by lunatics who don't know what they're doing.   
      
   Crown Maxime Lacourciere made the point that Trial Judge   
   Boucher had dismissed the Charter Motion on May 8 2017 as   
   frivolous for improperly citing the MMAR instead of the MMPR.   
   But we're not appealing that decision, we're appealing the   
   dismissal of the Quash Motion which was done on May 10 at the   
   end of the process. And the judge simply said he was   
   dismissing it as frivolous since it was based on the same   
   thing as the Charter Motion he had dismissed summarily.   
      
   Oops. Wrong. I had not made the typo of MMAR instead of   
   MMPR in the Quash Motion. And Maxime isn't even aware of the   
   Quash Motion decision since he wasn't the Crown doing the   
   case. So he said that Boucher had dismissed it as frivolous   
   but didn't know that Boucher hadn't read it.   
      
   Adrian only had one thing to say: Justice Schrager said it   
   wasn't frivolous to find out if the Allard decision striking   
   down the exemption had an impact on the law affecting me.   
      
   The Clerk noted that she'd seen the Schrager decision. Then   
   Adrian mentioned how Madam Justice Bich had also cited Mr.   
   Justice Schrager and asked Adrian where that was. He pointed   
   out Paragraph 2 of her decision...   
      
   So here's the gist: This rare procedure is to be used when   
   it's a frivolous appeal and the clerk should be able to say   
   pretty clearly that there's a problem with it when it's sent   
   to the full panel for dismissal, where the Appellant will get   
   the chance to argue it's not funny. If it is funny, an idiot   
   would get creamed.   
      
   But how often would a clerk doing a quash "frivolous" appeal   
   motion have a judge already saying "the appeal is not   
   frivolous." And how often would the Appellant have another   
   judge saying it's not frivolous too?   
      
   So, even though she doesn't know why the judges saw something   
   serious in the appeal, she has to recommend that to her, there   
   is nothing serious and that the judges were wrong.   
      
   The Crown argued that the full quote was: For the purposes of   
   the release pending appeal motion, the appeal is not   
   frivolous. As if to imply that the appeal could be frivolous   
   for the purposes of overturning his conviction.. Silly   
   actually. The judges said: the appeal is not frivolous. Tough   
   to come up with a misinterpretation of that one.   
      
   So that was it. Lacourciere made his motion for 3 minutes,   
   Adrian made his rebuttal for 3 minutes, she ascertained what   
   dates would be available if she does recommend that a panel   
   dismiss the appeal summarily as frivolous, and reserved her   
   decision.   
      
   Think about it, the Crown wants the Clerk to contradict the   
   Judges. Har har har har har har. On the grounds that "the   
   appeal is not frivolous" can be taken in a context where the   
   appeal is frivolous. Har har har.   
      
   So, counting Waylon O'Reilly's reserved decision today in   
   Federal Court of Canada, not this one at Quebec's highest   
   court makes it two reserved decisions on the same day. The   
   Crown just couldn't win them at today's showdown.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)