Dockets: A-408-15
A-409-15
A-410-15
A-411-15
A-412-15
A-413-15
Citation: 2017 FCA 91
[ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
| CORAM:
|
NADON J.A.
GAUTHIER J.A.
TRUDEL J.A.
|
| Docket: A-408-15
|
| BETWEEN:
|
| ANTOINE BÉRUBÉ
|
| Appellant
|
| and
|
| HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
|
| Respondent
|
| Docket: A-409-15
|
| BETWEEN:
|
| ANTOINE BÉRUBÉ
|
| Appellant
|
| and
|
| HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
|
| Respondent
|
| Docket: A-410-15
|
| BETWEEN:
|
| PHILIPPE D’AUTEUIL
|
| Appellant
|
| and
|
| HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
|
| Respondent
|
| Docket: A-411-15
|
| BETWEEN:
|
| PHILIPPE D’AUTEUIL
|
| Appellant
|
| and
|
| HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
|
| Respondent
|
| Docket: A-412-15
|
| BETWEEN:
|
| MARTIN FOURNIER GIGUÈRE
|
| Appellant
|
| and
|
| HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
|
| Respondent
|
| Docket: A-413-15
|
| BETWEEN:
|
| MARTIN FOURNIER GIGUÈRE
|
| Appellant
|
| and
|
| HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
|
| Respondent
|
Heard at Quebec City, Quebec, on May 1, 2017.
Judgment delivered from the bench at Quebec City, Quebec, on May 1, 2017.
| REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
|
NADON J.A.
|
Dockets: A-408-15
A-409-15
A-410-15
A-411-15
A-412-15
A-413-15
Citation: 2017 FCA 91
| CORAM:
|
NADON J.A.
GAUTHIER J.A.
TRUDEL J.A.
|
| Docket: A-408-15
|
| BETWEEN:
|
| ANTOINE BÉRUBÉ
|
| Appellant
|
| and
|
| HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
|
| Respondent
|
| Docket: A-409-15
|
| BETWEEN:
|
| ANTOINE BÉRUBÉ
|
| Appellant
|
| and
|
| HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
|
| Respondent
|
| Docket: A-410-15
|
| BETWEEN:
|
| PHILIPPE D’AUTEUIL
|
| Appellant
|
| and
|
| HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
|
| Respondent
|
| Docket: A-411-15
|
| BETWEEN:
|
| PHILIPPE D’AUTEUIL
|
| Appellant
|
| and
|
| HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
|
| Respondent
|
| Docket: A-412-15
|
| BETWEEN:
|
| MARTIN FOURNIER GIGUÈRE
|
| Appellant
|
| and
|
| HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
|
| Respondent
|
| Docket: A-413-15
|
| BETWEEN:
|
| MARTIN FOURNIER GIGUÈRE
|
| Appellant
|
| and
|
| HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
|
| Respondent
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Quebec City, Quebec, on May 1, 2017.)
NADON J.A.
[1]
Despite the very able presentation by counsel for the appellants, we are of the view that our intervention is not warranted. More specifically, we were not satisfied that the judge had committed an error in law or a palpable and overriding error in assessing the relevant facts.
[2]
Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed with only one set of costs for the six files.
[3]
A copy of these reasons will be placed in the related files to serve as reasons therein.
“M. Nadon”
Certified true translation
Janine Anderson, Revisor
Email this Content