Lapple v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2017 ONSC 5592

CITATION: Lapple v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2017 ONSC 5592

COURT FILE NO.: M 221/17

DATE: 20170907

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

Toronto Region

RE: RAYMOND LAPPLE and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

BEFORE: NORDHEIMER J.

COUNSEL: J. Morische & D. Allen, for the Crown/respondent

Raymond Lapple in person

HEARD: September 9, 2017

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] Mr. Lapple has brought an application, largely in the nature of certioriari, that encompasses a number of different complaints. After hearing from Mr. Lapple about these matters I dismissed the application principally on the basis that this court has no jurisdiction to grant any aspect of the relief that Mr. Lapple seeks. I said I would provide my reasons for so doing and now do so.

[2] In 2009, Mr. Lapple was charged with importing cocaine, conspiracy to import and possession for the purpose of trafficking. He was convicted of all three charges in February, 2013. Mr. Lapple appealed to the Court of Appeal from those convictions and that appeal was dismissed on April 11, 2016. Mr. Lapple sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada and that application for leave was dismissed on December 1, 2016.

[3] One aspect of Mr. Lapple’s current application for certiorari is that he alleges that Crown counsel did not provide proper disclosure to his trial counsel. Another aspect is that he alleges that there has been an abuse of process in the prosecution of his drug charges. The nature of that abuse is not entirely clear but it appears to be based on alleged improper conduct by police officers. Yet another aspect of his application is Mr. Lapple’s complaint that his s. 11(b) application for a stay for delay was not argued because of a failure by Legal Aid Ontario to provide the funding necessary to obtain the required transcripts. He couples this complaint with a reference to R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631 which he asserts should be now applied to his s. 11(b) challenge. Further, included within this application is a complaint that Mr. Lapple was denied the right to bring a private prosecution against his former business partner who he contends was the person who actually committed the drug offences for which Mr. Lapple was convicted. Still further, is an attempt by Mr. Lapple to have this court review three orders of Superior Court judges who quashed various subpoenas that Mr. Lapple issued to prosecuting counsel and police officers with respect to that attempted private prosecution.

[4] Without accepting that there is any merit to any of the issues raised by Mr. Lapple, this court has no jurisdiction to engage in a review of an earlier conviction made in this court. Insofar as there might be any argument that new evidence or facts have been discovered that realistically call into question the legitimacy of the convictions, those matters would have to be determined by the Court of Appeal. While it is difficult to see how the s. 11(b) issue could give rise to any such concerns, to the degree that it is possible, that is also a matter for the Court of Appeal.

[5] Insofar as the private prosecution is concerned, Mr. Lapple has to bring a proper application for review of that decision. He must then seek an order of the court requiring the transcript of the pre-inquiry hearing to be prepared and provided to him. None of this has been done. I would also note, in passing, that the pre-inquiry hearing was held in Newmarket and consequently Mr. Lapple’s application ought properly to be brought in that venue and not in Toronto. As far as the orders that quashed the subpoenas are concerned, there may well be no right of appeal from those orders but, if there is, it would also have to lie with the Court of Appeal.

[6] In the end result, no aspect of this application is properly before this court. It is for this reason that the application was dismissed.

NORDHEIMER J.

DATE: September 7, 2017