[2]
In response to this negative outcome, Mr. Roy applied to
the Federal Court for judicial review of the decision of the Board’s Appeal
Division. A Federal Court judge (the judge) dismissed his application with
costs (2012 FC 78).
[3]
On appeal to this Court, Mr. Roy, representing himself,
raised many arguments which, in our opinion, have no basis in law and are not
relevant for the purposes of a review on appeal of the impugned decision.
[4]
The judge wrote as follows at paragraphs 2 to 4 of his
reasons:
[2] Since
1998, Mr. Roy has faced several charges for contravening the Quebec
Securities Act, RSQ, c V-1. Judge Jean-Pierre Bonin of the Court of
Quebec found him guilty and sentenced him to a fine of $455,000 plus costs. In
1999, Justice Côté, of the Superior Court of Quebec at the time, upheld the
guilty verdict. In 2002, Mr. Roy pleaded guilty to a charge under the Act
respecting the ministre du Revenu, RSQ c M-31, for making false or
misleading statements in his income tax return. The court sentenced him to a
fine of $500,000.
[3] In
2006, following a class action, he was ordered to pay several million dollars
to people who suffered financial losses resulting from their investments in the
tax shelters of Mr. Roy and his co-accused.
[4] As he
had not paid any of the fines ordered, Justice of the Peace Suzanne Bousquet
allowed, in 2007, an application from the Montreal District fine collector to
have Mr. Roy imprisoned pursuant to article 347 of the Code of Penal
Procedure, RSQ, c C-25.1, in default of payment of his fines. He received a
sentence of 7 years, 2 months and 22 days, and was sent to a
federal penitentiary.
[5]
Mr. Roy has since unsuccessfully attempted every
recourse available to him under Quebec legislation in order to have Justice of the
Peace Bousquet’s decision reversed on the basis that it is contrary to the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 of the Constitution Act,
1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982 (U.K.), 1982,
c. 11. He is now once again trying to do this, indirectly, by challenging
the conditions that the Commission imposed on his full parole.
[6]
Essentially, Mr. Roy bases his appeal on two false
premises. The first is that this Court and the Federal Court should have [translation] “verified the legality” of the judgments of the Quebec
courts. Mr. Roy oppugns in particular Justice of the Peace Bousquet’s
decision sentencing him to more than seven years in prison and to the judgments
of the Superior Court dismissing his applications for writs of habeas corpus.
The second false premise is that the Board could not impose special conditions
on his full parole because he had been convicted of charges brought under
provincial legislation for the non-payment of a fine. He therefore argues that
the Board did not have jurisdiction to deal with his case and that, in any event,
the conditions imposed by the Board have no connection with the non-payment of
that fine.
[7]
In addition to these arguments, there is also the argument
that Mr. Roy’s fundamental rights under sections 7 and 12 of the
Charter were violated in that the [translation]
“Attorney General of Canada had a legal duty to ensure that, in the two habeas
corpus proceedings, there was no violation of the Charter of Rights, which he
failed to do, by act and/or omission”.
[8]
Mr. Roy’s appeal must fail.
[9]
First of all, as was explained at the hearing, the Federal
Court is not the appropriate forum for appealing the judgments of the Court of
Quebec and the Superior Court of Quebec. Moreover, as mentioned above,
Mr. Roy has exhausted, with regard to those decisions, all of the remedies
that are available to him under Quebec legislation. The appellant’s argument
that the Attorney General of Canada had a duty to intervene in penal proceedings
against him in Quebec courts in order to protect his rights under
sections 7 and 12 of the Charter is also baseless. There is no legislation
imposing such a duty on the Attorney General in Mr. Roy’s cases.
[10]
Furthermore, Mr. Roy was sentenced to more than two
years in prison. In accordance with section 743.1 of the Criminal Code,
R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, he therefore had to serve his sentence in a federal
penitentiary rather than in a prison or other correctional facility in Quebec.
This is why the Board was involved in his prison file, in accordance with
subsection 107(2) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,
S.C. 1992, c. 20.
[11]
Mr. Roy has not satisfied us that the judge committed an
error of principle or any other error in finding that the Board had imposed
reasonable conditions on him.
[12]
In conclusion, we are all of the opinion that this appeal is
completely baseless, and it is dismissed with costs.
“Johanne
Trudel”
Certified true translation
Erich Klein
Email this Content