Timm v. Canada (Attorney General)

Timm v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2015-09-16 Neutral citation 2015 FCA 199 File numbers A-343-14 Decision Content Date: 20150916 Docket: A-343-14 Citation: 2015 FCA 199 CORAM: NADON J.A. PELLETIER J.A. GAUTHIER J.A. BETWEEN: RICHARD TIMM Appellant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent Heard at Montréal, Quebec, on September 16, 2015. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on September 16, 2015. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: GAUTHIER J.A. Date: 20150916 Docket: A-343-14 Citation: 2015 FCA 199 CORAM: NADON J.A. PELLETIER J.A. GAUTHIER J.A. BETWEEN: RICHARD TIMM Appellant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (Delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on September 16, 2015) GAUTHIER J.A. [1] Richard Timm (the appellant) is appealing from a decision of Justice Luc Martineau of the Federal Court (2014 FC 587) dismissing his application for judicial review of a ministerial decision dated May 27, 2013. [2] In that decision, the Minister of Justice refused to conduct a new preliminary assessment of this [translation] “second” application for review of his criminal conviction (subsection 4(5) of the Regulations Respecting Applications for Ministerial Review – Miscarriages of Justice [the Regulations]). [3] The appellant has not persuaded us that the judge made any errors that would call for our intervention. [4] The only new fact or evidence presented in support of his second review application is the inexistence of a written incriminating statement that was allegedly not considered by the Minister in connection with the appellant’s first review application (Appeal Record, page 127, paragraph 6). [5] That statement was allegedly used to obtain a search warrant in 1993 and cannot be found. The information laid to obtain the search warrant states only that the appellant mentioned certain incriminating facts to two police officers during a meeting. [6] Accordingly, there is nothing that would allow us to conclude that the Minister based his decision on a written statement that does not exist. Moreover, the appellant has not established how all this constitutes significant information for the purposes of section 696.1 of the Criminal Code, (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), and the Regulations, that is, information that is relevant to the issue of his guilt and that could have affected the verdict (Tab 11 of the Book of Authorities). [7] In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Minister’s decision is reasonable. [8] The appeal will be dismissed. “Johanne Gauthier” J.A. Certified true translation François Brunet, Revisor FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD (AppeAl FROM THE JUDGMENT AND REASONS OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MArtineau OF the FEDERAL COURT DATED JUNE 20, 2014, DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW WITH COSTS IN DOCKET NO. T‑1063‑13.) DoCKET: A-343-14 STYLE OF CAUSE: RICHARD TIMM v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, QuEbec DATE OF HEARING: September 16, 2015 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NADON J.A. PELLETIER J.A. GAUTHIER J.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: GAUTHIER J.A. DATED: septembER 16, 2015 APPEARANCES: Pierre Tabah FOR THE AppeLlant Toni Abi-Nasr FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Labelle, Côté, Tabah et associés St-Jérome, Quebec FOR the appelLant William F. Pentney Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec for the respondent