R. v. Duquette
- Citation
- 2020 CMAC 6
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada
- Decision
- 17 November 2020
- Posture
- Court Martial Appeal / Motion Hearing on Extension of Time and Page‑limit
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada
- Decision
- 17 November 2020
- Posture
- Court Martial Appeal / Motion Hearing on Extension of Time and Page‑limit
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The motion for an extension was dismissed because the appellant missed the prescribed filing deadline and failed to support the motion with evidence as required by Rule 24(2); as a result, the ancillary request for leave to exceed the 30‑page limit was moot.
Court disposition
Motion for extension of time dismissed; motion for leave to exceed 30 pages declared moot.
Orders
- The motion for an extension of time within which to serve and file the appellant’s Memorandum of Fact and Law is dismissed.
- The motion seeking leave to file a Memorandum of Fact and Law in excess of 30 pages is moot.
02
Material facts
Parties
Capt. Éric Duquette
AppellantHer Majesty the Queen
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Court Martial Appeal / Motion Hearing on Extension of Time and Page‑limit
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the court should grant an extension of time to serve and file the appellant's Memorandum of Fact and Law under Rule 17(1)
- 02
Whether the appellant should be granted leave to file a memorandum in excess of 30 pages under Rule 4.2(5)
- 03
Whether the motion was procedurally compliant by being supported with evidence as required by Rule 24(2)
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant sought an extension of time to file his Memorandum of Fact and Law and permission to file a memorandum in excess of 30 pages; filed the Notice of Motion on October 21, 2020 after the October 9 deadline and did not file a supporting affidavit.
- Respondent
- Respondent noted the appellant missed the filing deadline, requested the memorandum on October 14, 2020, and opposed relief in the absence of supporting evidence; argued the motion should be dismissed for lack of evidentiary support and non‑compliance with the Rules.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 24(2), Court Martial Appeal Court Rules, SOR/86/959
Motions must be supported by evidence in an affidavit or, exceptionally, by oral testimony.
- 02
Rules 7(1) and 17(1), Court Martial Appeal Court Rules, SOR/86/959
Deadlines for filing memoranda are mandatory unless extended by the court; extensions are governed by Rule 17(1).
- 03
Rule 4.2(5), Court Martial Appeal Court Rules, SOR/86/959
Memoranda exceeding the prescribed page limit require leave of the court under the rules.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The motion for an extension was dismissed because the appellant missed the prescribed filing deadline and failed to support the motion with evidence as required by Rule 24(2); as a result, the ancillary request for leave to exceed the 30‑page limit was moot.
Obiter and limits
- Registry record showed the respondent requested the appellant's memorandum on October 14, 2020.
- The court expressly considered Rules 4.2(5), 7(1) and 17(1) in adjudicating the motions.
Court disposition
Motion for extension of time dismissed; motion for leave to exceed 30 pages declared moot.
- The motion for an extension of time within which to serve and file the appellant’s Memorandum of Fact and Law is dismissed.
- The motion seeking leave to file a Memorandum of Fact and Law in excess of 30 pages is moot.
Source and reliance status
Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada · 17 November 2020
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada
Judgment· 17 November 2020
R. v. Duquette Collection Court Martial Appeal Court Date 2020-11-17 Neutral citation 2020 CMAC 6 File numbers CMAC-605 Decision-makers Bell, B. Richard Decision Content Date : 20201117 Docket : CMAC-605 Citation: 2020 CMAC 6 Date : 20201117 Dossier : CMAC-605 Référence: 2020 CACM 6 Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on November 4, 2020 Entendue à Ottawa (Ontario), le 4 novembre 2020 Present : Chief Justice Bell Présent : le juge en chef Bell BETWEEN : CAPT. ÉRIC DUQUETTE Appellant
AND
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent ENTRE : CAPT. ÉRIC DUQUETTE appelant et SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE intimée
ORDER
ORDONNANCE WHEREAS the Appellant brings a motion pursuant to Rule 17(1) of the Court Martial Appeal Court Rules, SOR/86/959 (Rules) for an order granting an extension of the time within which to serve and file his Memorandum of Fact and Law; and, ATTENDU QUE l'appelant présente une requête en vertu de la règle 17(1) des Règles de la Cour d'appel de la cour martiale, DORS/86/959 (Règles) pour obtenir une ordonnance accordant une prolongation du délai pour signifier et déposer son exposé des faits et du droit; et WHEREAS the Appellant brings a motion, pursuant to Rule 4.2(5) of the Rules, for an order granting him permission to file a Memorandum of Fact and Law which exceeds 30 pages; and, ATTENDU QUE l’appelant présente une requête en vertu de la règle 4.2(5) des Règles pour obtenir une ordonnance l'autorisant à déposer un exposé des faits et du droit de plus de 30 pages; et WHEREAS the Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal on June 30, 2020; and, ATTENDU QUE l'appelant a déposé son avis d'appel le 30 juin 2020; et WHEREAS the Court Martial Administrator filed the Appeal Book on September 9, 2020; and, ATTENDU QUE l'administrateur de la cour martiale a déposé le dossier d’appel le 9 septembre 2020; et WHEREAS the Appellant did not file a Memorandum of Fact and Law by October 9, 2020 the date required pursuant to Rule 7(1) of the Rules; and, ATTENDU QUE l'appelant n'a pas déposé
son exposé des faits et du droit avant le 9 octobre 2020, date requise en vertu de la règle 7(1) des Règles; et WHEREAS a review of the Registry demonstrates the Respondent requested the Appellant’s Memorandum of Fact and Law on October 14, 2020 five days after it was due; and, ATTENDU QU’un examen par le bureau du greffe démontre que l’intimée a demandé l'exposé des faits et du droit de l’appelant le 14 octobre 2020, cinq jours après qu'il était dû; et WHEREAS the Appellant filed the within Notice of Motion seeking the relief set out herein on October 21, 2020 without a supporting affidavit, as required by Rule 24(2) of the Rules; and, ATTENDU QUE le 21 octobre 2020 l'appelant a déposé le présent avis de requête en vue d'obtenir les redressements y demandés sans affidavit à l'appui, comme exigé sous la règle 24(2) des Règles; et UPON noting that there is no evidence before me in support of the motion given that it is not supported by any evidence offered by way of affidavit or, exceptionally, by oral testimony; and, CONSIDÉRANT qu'il n'y a pas de preuve devant moi pour appuyer la requête étant donné qu'elle n'est appuyée par aucune preuve offerte sous forme d'affidavit ou, exceptionnellement, de témoignage oral; et UPON hearing counsel for the parties; and, APRÈS avoir entendu les procureurs des parties; et, UPON considering Rules 4.2(5), 7(1), and 17(1) of the Rules; APRÈS
avoir examiné les règles 4.2(5), 7(1) et 17(1) des Règles; THIS COURT ORDERS THAT : The motion for an extension of time within which to serve and file the Appellant’s Memorandum of Fact and Law is dismissed; and, LA COUR ORDONNE QUE : 1. La requête pour obtenir une ordonnance accordant une prolongation du délai pour signifier et déposer l’exposé des faits et du droit de l’appelant soit rejetée; et, Given the Court’s order in paragraph 1 above, the motion seeking leave to file a Memorandum of Fact and Law in excess of 30 pages is moot.
2. Compte tenu de l'ordonnance de la Cour au paragraphe 1 ci-dessus, la requête pour obtenir l'autorisant de déposer un exposé des faits et du droit de plus de 30 pages est devenue théorique. "B. Richard Bell” Chief Justice / Juge en chef
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.