Case information

Docket

Judgments on applications for leave to appeal are rendered by the Court, but are not necessarily unanimous.

List of proceedings

Date	Proceeding	Filed By (if applicable)
2022-03-11	Transcript received, 113 Pages required: paper copies (rec'd 2022-03-25 / reçu 2022-03-25)
2022-03-10	Appeal closed
2022-02-10	Formal judgment sent to the registrar of the court of appeal and all parties
2022-02-10	Judgment on appeal and notice of deposit of judgment sent to all parties
2022-02-10	Judgment on the appeal rendered, CJ Mo Ka Côt Br Row Mar Kas Ja, The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montréal), Numbers 500-10-006180-168, 500-10-006181-166, 500-10-006182-164 and 500-10-006190-167, 2020 QCCA 1118, dated September 3, 2020, was heard on February 10, 2022, and the Court on that day delivered the following judgment orally: [TRANSLATION] KASIRER J. — The Crown appeals from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal quashing four convictions and entering a stay of proceedings in favour of the respondents because of a violation of their right to be tried within a reasonable time. The appellant asks that the stay of proceedings be set aside and that the case be remanded to the Court of Appeal for a decision on the nine grounds of appeal that it chose not to address, as it found it unnecessary to do so in the circumstances On September 14, 2009, the respondents were charged with laundering proceeds of crime, conspiracy and criminal organization offences. In 2014 and 2015, they filed motions for a stay of proceedings under ss. 11(b) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. On September 17, 2015, before this Court rendered its decision in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631, the Court of Québec dismissed the motions, finding that a stay of proceedings was not an appropriate remedy. Because the judge found a 77 month delay between the charges and the anticipated end of the trial, he held that s. 11(b) of the Charter had been infringed. However, he declined to enter a stay of proceedings on the ground that the accused had not been prejudiced by the delay. On this point, the judge held that [TRANSLATION] “there is as much prejudice resulting from the charge, and not from the unreasonable delay”, and that there was a “clear and compelling” societal interest in having the accused stand trial (Court of Québec reasons, A.R., vol. I, at p. 60). The judgment of conviction was rendered on June 22, 2016. In the Court of Appeal’s view, the judge had no choice but to enter a stay of proceedings after finding an infringement of s. 11(b) (citing R. v. Rahey, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 588). The Court of Appeal declined to review the trial judge’s reasons concerning the infringement of s. 11(b), finding that the appeal record was not sufficiently complete to permit it to determine whether the judge’s assessment of the delays was inadequate or wrong. In this Court, the Crown acknowledges that the trial judge made an error, but it takes the view that the error was not determinative of the outcome. It argues that the Court of Appeal erred in entering a stay of proceedings in reliance on the trial judge’s erroneous and premature conclusion that s. 11(b) had been infringed. With respect, the trial judge erred in assessing the prejudice suffered by the accused at the remedy stage rather than considering it in determining whether s. 11(b) had been infringed, in accordance with the criteria applicable at the time set out in R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771. Despite that error, however, a functional analysis of his reasons shows that he considered the relevant factors and reached the correct conclusion, namely that the motions for a stay of proceedings should be dismissed. Although he was mistaken about the stage of the analysis at which prejudice had to be considered, his refusal to enter a stay of proceedings nonetheless makes it possible to conclude that s. 11(b) was not infringed based on the Morin criteria. The Court of Appeal failed to make this finding (paras. 17 18). In the circumstances, we are all of the view that the Court of Appeal erred in entering the stay of proceedings that the judge had himself denied. With respect, the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to re examine the unreasonableness of the delays on the ground that the record before it was incomplete. On appeal, the Crown filed a statement of admissions by the parties — filed by the parties at trial under s. 655 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 — that contained a detailed chronology of events, the content of which was not analyzed at all by the Court of Appeal. In our opinion, the evidence in the record allowed the appeal judges to carry out that analysis. It should be noted that a statement of admissions by the parties was not part of the appeal records in the cases on which the Court of Appeal relied, at para. 14 of its reasons, to justify its refusal to re examine the delays in this case. Although a court is not bound by admissions of law, a joint statement may be useful on appeal and may help reduce the delays leading to the infringement alleged by an accused (see, e.g., R. v. Bryant, 2021 QCCA 1807, at para. 3). The evidence in the record shows that the respondents directly caused most of the delays of which they complain and that they attempted to derail the trial by filing multiple applications, motions and interlocutory appeals, which were unsuccessful for the most part. These delays are largely but not exclusively attributable to the defence and must be subtracted from the total delay. The respondents also caused additional delays by insisting that a certain lawyer represent them despite a clear conflict of interest. In 2011, the preliminary inquiry judge found that Mélanie and Dax Ste Marie could not be represented by the same lawyer. As a result, they represented themselves. Despite the conflict of interest, they continued to insist that the lawyer retained by their father, Michel Ste Marie, represent all three of them. They maintained that position for more than two years. That course of conduct was of course untenable and caused additional delay. We reach the same conclusion with respect to Richard Felx. Although the conflict of interest did not directly involve him, he never expressed concern about the delays caused by his co-accused. Moreover, the prosecution offered him his own preliminary inquiry several times, but he always refused. Jordan reaffirmed the principle, which is applicable in this case, that the defence should not be allowed to benefit from its own delay causing conduct or from its tactics aimed at causing delay (paras. 60 and 63; see Morin, at p. 802; R. v. Askov, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199, at pp. 1227 28). The appellant argues that once the deductions are made, the net delay is 35 months at the most (A.F., at para. 41). The respondents Mélanie Ste Marie, Dax Ste Marie and Richard Felx refer to this same calculation in their factum (R.F., at para. 37). Assuming for the sake of argument that the residual delay exceeds the ceiling set in Jordan, the presumption of unreasonableness may be rebutted on the basis of the transitional exceptional circumstance (Jordan, at paras. 96 97). The transitional exceptional circumstance may apply where it is shown that “the time the case has taken is justified based on the parties’ reasonable reliance on the law as it previously existed” (R. v. Cody, 2017 SCC 31, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 659, at para. 68). In R. v. Rice, 2018 QCCA 198, at para. 202 (CanLII), Vauclair J.A. noted that, for this purpose, the court may examine the conduct of the accused: [TRANSLATION] “[t]he absence of haste is an indicator of the lack of concern the accused has for delays and may be helpful in assessing prejudice”. This is in line with the factual determination made by the trial judge in this case, who found that the prejudice complained of by the respondents did not result from delay. In this situation, in light of the transitional exceptional circumstance identified in Jordan, it should be concluded that s. 11(b) of the Charter was not infringed and that the trial judge was right to dismiss the motions for a stay of proceedings. For these reasons, we would allow the appeal, set aside the stay of proceedings and remand the case to a new panel of the Quebec Court of Appeal for consideration of the other grounds of appeal that remain outstanding. Allowed
2022-02-10	Hearing of the appeal, 2022-02-10, CJ Mo Ka Côt Br Row Mar Kas Ja Judgment rendered
2022-02-07	Respondent's condensed book, (Book Form), (Printed version filed on 2022-02-07)	Mélanie Ste-Marie
2022-02-07	Respondent's condensed book, (Book Form), (Printed version filed on 2022-02-07)	Michel Ste-Marie
2022-02-04	Intervener's condensed book, (Book Form), (Printed version filed on 2022-02-08)	Attorney General of Ontario
2022-02-04	Correspondence (sent by the Court) to, Zoom information and registration links sent to parties
2022-02-03	Notice of Remote Participation by a Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada sent to all parties
2022-02-01	Appellant's condensed book, (Book Form), (Printed version filed on 2022-02-09)	Her Majesty the Queen
2022-01-27	Other factum, (Book Form), Respondent factum in reply to the interveners, Completed on: 2022-02-02, (Printed version filed on 2022-01-28)	Michel Ste-Marie
2022-01-25	Order on motion to file a reply factum on appeal, by KASIRER J.
2022-01-25	Decision on the motion to file a reply factum on appeal, Kas, UPON APPLICATION by the respondent, Michel Ste-Marie, for an order granting leave to serve and file a factum not exceeding ten (10) pages in length in reply to the factums of the interveners; AND THE MATERIAL FILED having been read; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted in part. The respondent, Michel Ste-Marie, is permitted to serve and file a reply factum not exceeding five (5) pages in length on or before January 28, 2022. Judgment accordingly
2022-01-25	Submission of motion to file a reply factum on appeal, Kas
2022-01-24	Notice of appearance, (Letter Form), Marie-Pier Boulet and Marie-Ève Landry will appear before the Court. Marie-Pier Boulet will present oral argument. , (Printed version due on 2022-01-31)	Mélanie Ste-Marie
2022-01-21	Notice of appearance, 2022-01-06 Criminal Lawyers Association (Ontario) Erin Dann and Daniel Goldbloom will appear before the Court. Erin Dann will present oral argument. 2022-01-18 Michel Ste-Marie (Respondent) Frank Addario and Sherif Foda will appear before the Court and will present oral argument. 2022-01-19 Attorney General for Ontario Michael Fawcett will appear before the Court and will present oral argument. 2022-01-19 Her Majesty the Queen (Appellant) Magalie Cimon, Émilie Robert and Geneviève Gravel will appear before the Court. Magalie Cimon will present oral argument. 2022-01-19 Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense Louis Belleau, Ad. E. and Antoine Grondin-Couture Gravel will appear before the Court. Louis Belleau Ad. E. will present oral argument	Her Majesty the Queen
2022-01-20	Motion to file a reply factum on appeal, (Book Form), Missing: Filing Fee (rec' 02/02/22) Proof of Service (rec' 01/25/22), Completed on: 2022-02-15, (Printed version filed on 2022-01-21)	Michel Ste-Marie
2022-01-20	Correspondence received from, (Letter Form), Colleen Bauman is now agent for the respondent, Michel Ste Marie., (Printed version due on 2022-01-27)	Michel Ste-Marie
2022-01-14	Correspondence (sent by the Court) to, Letter of directions relating to upcoming hearing
2022-01-05	Order on motion to strike out, by KASIRER J.
2022-01-05	Decision on motion to strike out, Kas, UPON APPLICATIONS by the respondents, Michel Ste-Marie and Mélanie Ste-Marie, Dax Ste-Marie and Richard Felx (jointly) for an order striking the intervener factums; AND THE MATERIAL FILED having been read; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The motions are dismissed. Dismissed
2022-01-05	Submission of motion to strike out, Kas
2021-12-14	Motion to strike out, (Book Form), Missing: Proof of Service (rec' 12/22/21), Filing Fee (rec' 12/17/21), Completed on: 2021-12-22, (Printed version filed on 2021-12-15)	Mélanie Ste-Marie
2021-12-01	Response to motion to strike out, (Letter Form), Completed on: 2021-12-01, (Printed version filed on 2021-12-03)	Attorney General of Ontario
2021-12-01	Motion to strike out, (Book Form), Missing: Proof of Service (rec' 12/03/21), Filing Fee (rec' 12/03/21), Completed on: 2021-12-06, (Printed version filed on 2021-12-02)	Michel Ste-Marie
2021-11-10	Intervener's factum, (Book Form), Completed on: 2021-11-17, (Printed version filed on 2021-11-12)	Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense
2021-11-10	Intervener's factum, (Book Form), Completed on: 2021-11-17, (Printed version filed on 2021-11-12)	Attorney General of Ontario
2021-11-10	Intervener's book of authorities, (Book Form), Completed on: 2021-11-17, (Printed version filed on 2021-11-10)	Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario)
2021-11-10	Intervener's factum, (Book Form), Completed on: 2021-11-17, (Printed version filed on 2021-11-10)	Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario)
2021-11-08	Notice of hearing sent to parties, (sent electronically)
2021-11-08	Appeal hearing scheduled, 2022-02-10 Judgment rendered
2021-10-29	Letter advising the parties of tentative hearing date and filing deadlines (Leave granted)
2021-09-29	Order on motion to extend time, by BROWN J.
2021-09-29	Submission of motion to extend time, Br
2021-09-29	Order on motion for leave to intervene, by Justice Brown (sent by email)
2021-09-29	Decision on the motion for leave to intervene, Br, UPON APPLICATION by the Association québécoise des avocats et des avocates de défense for an order extending the time to serve and file their motion for leave to intervene; AND UPON APPLICATION by the Attorney General of Ontario, the Association Québécoise des avocats et des avocates de défense and the Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario) for leave to intervene in the above appeal; AND THE MATERIAL FILED having been read; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The motion for an extension of time is granted. The motions for leave to intervene are granted and the said three (3) interveners shall be entitled to each serve and file a factum not to exceed ten (10) pages in length on or before November 10, 2021. The said three (3) interveners are each granted permission to present oral argument not exceeding five (5) minutes at the hearing of the appeal. The interveners are not entitled to raise new issues or to adduce further evidence or otherwise to supplement the record of the parties. Pursuant to Rule 59(1)(a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, the interveners shall pay to the appellant and the respondents any additional disbursements resulting from their interventions. Granted
2021-09-29	Submission of motion for leave to intervene, (3 motions), Br
2021-09-17	Certificate (on limitations to public access), 23B, (Printed version due on 2021-09-24)	Michel Ste-Marie
2021-09-17	Certificate (on limitations to public access), 23A, (Printed version due on 2021-09-24)	Michel Ste-Marie
2021-09-17	Respondent's factum, (Book Form), Completed on: 2021-09-23, (Printed version filed on 2021-09-28)	Michel Ste-Marie
2021-09-17	Respondent's book of authorities, (Book Form), Completed on: 2021-09-23, (Printed version filed on 2021-09-28)	Mélanie Ste-Marie
2021-09-17	Certificate (on limitations to public access), 23B, (Printed version due on 2021-09-24)	Mélanie Ste-Marie
2021-09-17	Certificate (on limitations to public access), 23A, (Printed version due on 2021-09-24)	Mélanie Ste-Marie
2021-09-17	Respondent's factum, (Book Form), Completed on: 2021-09-23, (Printed version filed on 2021-09-28)	Mélanie Ste-Marie
2021-09-08	Certificate of counsel (attesting to record), (Letter Form), (Printed version filed on 2021-09-09)	Her Majesty the Queen
2021-08-30	Response to the motion for leave to intervene, (Letter Form), (AGO), Completed on: 2021-09-07, (Printed version filed on 2021-08-30)	Her Majesty the Queen
2021-08-30	Response to the motion for leave to intervene, (CLA), Completed on: 2021-09-07	Her Majesty the Queen
2021-08-30	Response to the motion for leave to intervene, (Letter Form), (AQAAD), Completed on: 2021-09-07	Her Majesty the Queen
2021-08-30	Motion to extend time, (Book Form), to serve and file the motion on intervention (AQAAD), Completed on: 2021-09-07, (Electronic version filed on 2021-08-31)	Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense
2021-08-23	Notice of name, (Letter Form), (Printed version filed on 2021-08-25)	Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense
2021-08-23	Motion for leave to intervene, (Book Form), Missing: Motion for Extension of Time (rec'd 2021-08-31) Filing Fee (rec' 08/26/21), Completed on: 2021-09-07, (Printed version filed on 2021-08-25)	Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense
2021-08-20	Notice of name, (Letter Form), (Printed version filed on 2021-09-13)	Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario)
2021-08-20	Notice of name, (Letter Form), (Printed version due on 2021-08-27)	Attorney General of Ontario
2021-08-20	Motion for leave to intervene, (Book Form), Missing: Filing Fee (rec' 08/27/21), Completed on: 2021-09-20, (Printed version filed on 2021-09-13)	Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario)
2021-08-20	Motion for leave to intervene, (Book Form), Missing: Filing Fee, Incomplete, (Printed version filed on 2021-08-24)	Attorney General of Ontario
2021-08-18	Notice of change of counsel, (Letter Form), (Printed version filed on 2022-01-21)	Michel Ste-Marie
2021-07-23	Certificate (on limitations to public access), (Printed version filed on 2021-07-23)	Her Majesty the Queen
2021-07-23	Appellant's record, (Book Form), (24 volumes), Required: - 24A (rec'd 2021-09-08) - Record Vol I front cover (rec'd 2021-09-08) , Completed on: 2021-09-23, (Printed version filed on 2021-07-23)	Her Majesty the Queen
2021-07-23	Appellant's factum, (Book Form), Completed on: 2021-08-17, (Printed version filed on 2021-07-23)	Her Majesty the Queen
2021-05-28	Notice of appeal, (Book Form), Completed on: 2021-06-17, (Printed version due on 2021-06-04)	Her Majesty the Queen
2021-05-06	Copy of formal judgment sent to Registrar of the Court of Appeal and all parties
2021-05-06	Judgment on leave sent to the parties
2021-05-06	Judgment of the Court on the application for leave to appeal, The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montréal), Numbers 500-10-006180-168, 500-10-006181-166, 500-10-006182-164 and 500-10-006190-167, 2020 QCCA 1118, dated September 3, 2020, is granted. Granted
2021-03-29	All materials on application for leave submitted to the Judges, for consideration by the Court
2020-12-16	Certificate (on limitations to public access), (Letter Form), (Printed version due on 2020-12-23)	Mélanie Ste-Marie
2020-12-16	Respondent's response on the application for leave to appeal, (Book Form), missing: amended cover page containing an amended style of cause, Completed on: 2021-03-31	Mélanie Ste-Marie
2020-12-16	Notice of change of solicitor, (Letter Form), The respondent Richard Felx will henceforth be represented by Me Marie-Pier Boulet, (Printed version due on 2020-12-23)	Richard Felx
2020-11-19	Letter acknowledging receipt of a complete application for leave to appeal, FILE OPENED 2020-11-19
2020-11-05	Notice of change of solicitor, (Letter Form), The Respondents will now be represented by Me Marie-Pier Boulet., (Printed version filed on 2020-12-18)	Mélanie Ste-Marie
2020-11-02	Certificate (on limitations to public access), (Letter Form), (Printed version filed on 2021-06-10)	Her Majesty the Queen
2020-11-02	Application for leave to appeal, (Book Form), (3 volumes), Completed on: 2020-11-02, (Printed version filed on 2021-06-10)	Her Majesty the Queen

Parties

Main parties

Main parties - Appellants

Name	Role	Status
Her Majesty the Queen	Applicant	Active

v.

Main parties - Respondents

Name	Role	Status
Ste-Marie, Mélanie	Respondent	Active
Ste-Marie, Michel	Respondent	Active
Ste-Marie, Dax	Respondent	Active
Felx, Richard	Respondent	Active

Other parties

Other parties

Name	Role	Status
Attorney General of Ontario	Intervener	Active
Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario)	Intervener	Active
Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense	Intervener	Active

Counsel

Summary

Memorandums of argument on application for leave to appeal

The memorandums of argument on an application for leave to appeal will be posted here 30 days after leave to appeal has been granted unless they contain personal information, information that is subject to a publication ban, or any other information that is not part of the public record. You may also obtain copies of the memorandum by filing out the Request for Court records form or by contacting the Court’s Records Centre either by email at records-dossiers@scc-csc.ca or by telephone at 613‑996‑7933 or at 1‑888‑551‑1185.

If you have questions about a memorandum of argument or want to use a memorandum of argument, please contact the author of the memorandum of argument directly. Their name appears at the end of the memorandum of argument. The contact information for counsel is found in the “Counsel” tab of this page.

Downloadable PDFs

Related links

• Accessibility
• Restrictions

Factums on appeal

The factums of the appellant, the respondent and the intervener will be posted here at least 2 weeks before the hearing unless they contain personal information, information that is subject to a publication ban, or any other information that is not part of the public record. You may also obtain copies of factums by filling out the Request for Court records form or by contacting the Court’s Records Centre either by email at records-dossiers@scc-csc.ca or by telephone at 613‑996‑7933 or at 1‑888‑551‑1185.

If you have questions about a factum or want permission to use a factum, please contact the author of the factum directly. Their contact information appears on the first page of each factum.

Downloadable PDFs

Related links

• Accessibility
• Restrictions

Webcasts

Related links

• Accessibility
• Restrictions