COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – JOHN C. TURMEL (Appellant)
BEFORE:
LABROSSE, SHARPE and BLAIR JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
The appellant in person
Steve A. Coroza and François Lacasse
for the respondent
HEARD & RELEASED ORALLY:
February 23, 2007
On appeal from the conviction entered on March 10, 2006 and the sentence imposed on March 29, 2006 by Justice Paul R. Bélanger.
E N D O R S E M E N T
1In this case the trial judge refused to suspend the proceedings pending the determination of Mr. Turmel’s appeal on the prerogative remedies and he proceeded with the trial. Mr. Turmel was convicted and sentenced. His appeals C44587 and C44588 (the prerogative remedies) are now moot as he has been convicted and now appeals his conviction (C45295).
2The appeal is premised on the argument that possession for the purpose of trafficking is not an offence known to law. Mr. Turmel’s enthusiastic arguments face an insurmountable hurdle. This court has already rejected these types of arguments (see R. v. Turmel (2003), 177 C.C.C. (3d) 533 (Ont. C.A.) and Hitzig v. Canada (2003), 177 C.C.C. (3d) 449 (Ont. C.A.)) 3873 and concluded that these offences remained in full force and effect. This applies at the time that the appellant is alleged to have committed them. These decisions are binding upon us and we agree with them.
3The appellant admitted the Crown’s case at trial and was properly convicted. There is no merit to the argument that the Crown did not properly exercise its discretion in the manner that it charged the appellant.
4At trial, Mr. Turmel was given full opportunity to present written argument on any issue he wished to raise prior to conviction. It is only after his conviction, and without notice, that he raised the Charter argument he now asserts. The decision of the trial judge not to exercise his discretion to hear the Charter issue was properly exercised.
5The appeal is dismissed.
“J-M. Labrosse J.A.”
“Robert J. Sharpe J.A.”
“R.A. Blair J.A.”
