R. v. R.L., 2013 SCC 54, [2013] 3 SCR 418

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

Between:

R.L.

Appellant

and

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent

Coram: McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner JJ.

R. v. R.L., 2013 SCC 54, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 418

R.L.                                                                                                                  Appellant

v.

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                              Respondent

Indexed as:  R. v. R.L.

2013 SCC 54

File No.:  34871.

2013:  October 18.

Present:  McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec

                    Criminal law — Appeals — Application for extension of time — Appellant pleading guilty to 14 charges between 1996 and 2005 — Appellant found unfit to stand trial in 2011 for reason of intellectual disability — Appellant subsequently seeking to have convictions entered between 1996 and 2005 set aside — Majority of Court of Appeal dismissing application for extension of time to appeal convictions — Court of Appeal not erring in dismissing application for extension of time.

                    APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal (Chamberland, Rochette and Dalphond JJ.A.), 2012 QCCA 635, [2012] J.Q. n^o 3071 (QL), SOQUIJ AZ-50845530, 2012 CarswellQue 3329.  Appeal dismissed, Cromwell J. dissenting.

                    Christian Desrosiers and Lida Sara Nouraie, for the appellant.

                    Geneviève Dagenais and Christian Jarry, for the respondent.

                    The following is the judgment delivered orally by

[1]                              LeBel J. — Speaking for a majority of the Court, I am of the opinion that the Court of Appeal of Quebec did not err when, for the reasons given by Chamberland J.A., it dismissed the appellant’s application for an extension of time, and for those reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

[2]                              Justice Cromwell, dissenting, essentially for the reasons given by Dalphond J.A. in dissent in the Court of Appeal, would have allowed the appeal, granted the extension of time and returned the matter to the Court of Appeal.

                    Judgment accordingly.

                    Solicitors for the appellant:  Desrosiers, Joncas, Massicotte, Montréal.

                    Solicitor for the respondent:  Poursuites criminelles et pénales du Québec, Montréal.