Case information

Prerogative writs — Certiorari — Writ of prohibition — Superior Court’s concurrent jurisdiction over constitutional matters — Itinerant court — Relocation of trial — As result of Court of Québec’s decision regarding interrruption of judicial services affecting Inuit village of Quaqtaq, nevertheless visited by itinerant court over last few decades, but no longer being visited, whether this is rare case where Superior Court had to allow Rahey application and exercise its concurrent jurisdiction — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in finding that it had no appellate power regarding Superior Court’s decision to not exercise its concurrent jurisdiction.

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) (CERTAIN INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC)

The applicant is an Inuk who lives in Quaqtaq, a village in northern Quebec. The applicant was charged with sexual assault and assault, and his trial was scheduled for February 15, 2023, before the itinerant court sitting in Quaqtaq. However, the trial was relocated to Kuujjuaq. The day before the trial, the Crown filed an application for the complainant to testify from Montréal, by videoconference. The applicant challenged the well foundedness of that application, while claiming the right to be tried in Quaqtaq. The Court of Québec application judge was of the opinion that she did not need to rule on the issue of the applicant’s right to be tried in his community. She allowed the Crown’s application, which presupposed that the applicant had to travel to Kuujjuaq the next day to stand trial there. The applicant immediately instituted a proceeding by way of a writ of prohibition and certiorari in aid and filed an application asking that the Quebec Superior Court exercise its concurrent jurisdiction in respect of remedies under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (which he named [TRANSLATION] “Rahey application”). The Superior Court dismissed the applicant’s proceeding. It was of the opinion that the Court of Québec had jurisdiction to determine the place of the trial. The applicant appealed as of right from the Superior Court’s decision, but the appeal was dismissed by the Quebec Court of Appeal on the ground that there was no jurisdictional error.