|
Criminal - Summary Conviction Appeals [s.839]. R. v. J.S.
In R. v. J.S. (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed a Crown appeal, here from a summary conviction appeal - noting the nature of this appeal proceeding:[56] The trial judge's underlying findings of fact were owed deference by the summary conviction appeal court, as well as by this court.
....
[58] This appeal is one more step removed from the trial judge. It is an appeal from the decision of the Superior Court of Justice, not a second appeal from the trial judge’s decision: R. v. R.R., 2008 ONCA 497, 90 O.R. (3d) 641, at para. 24. This form of appeal must come within the confines of s. 839(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, and thus must be based on a question of law alone. Accordingly, the question for this court is whether there exists an error of law in the summary conviction appeal judge’s characterization of a period of delay or in the ultimate determination of unreasonable delay. . R. v. Khandakar
In R. v. Khandakar (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal noted the SOR for criminal summary conviction appeals:[64] Appeals to this court in summary conviction matters are limited to grounds that involve “a question of law alone”: Criminal Code, s. 839(1). The term “question of law alone” means the same thing as “question of law”: R. v. Biniaris, 2000 SCC 15, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381, at para. 31. To qualify, “[a]n appealable error must be traced to a question of law, rather than a question about how to weigh evidence and assess whether it meets the standard of proof”: R. v. Chung, 2020 SCC 8, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 405, at para. 10; R. v. Hodgson, 2024 SCC 25, at para. 34. . R. v. Hart
In R. v. Hart (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal illustrates some summary conviction appeal procedures:[1] On April 2, 2015, the applicant was found guilty in the Ontario Court of Justice of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit. Her appeal to the Superior Court of Justice (sitting as a Summary Conviction Appeal Court) against her conviction only was dismissed on March 7, 2016. An application for leave to appeal to this court was heard by a panel on October 4, 2016 and was dismissed, with a final order dismissing the leave to appeal application entered and issued by this court on March 6, 2017. The appeal panel found that the grounds of appeal the applicant was advancing did not raise a question of law alone, as required by s. 839 of the Criminal Code, and were also not such as to meet the requirements set out in R. v. R.R., 2008 ONCA 497, 96 O.R. (3d) 641. No appeal was taken from this court’s order to the Supreme Court of Canada.
....
[5] As for the applicant’s motion for leave to appeal her sentence, no appeal was taken from the sentence imposed in the Ontario Court of Justice. Any appeal from sentence is properly brought before the Summary Conviction Appeal Court and, in the absence of such an appeal, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain a sentence appeal directly from the Ontario Court of Justice. . R. v. Lloyd
In R. v. Lloyd (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered the SOR for a second summary conviction appeal:[14] The question of whether an appeal should be allowed to challenge a summary conviction judge’s assessment of the sufficiency of a trial judge’s reasons, is a question of law: R. v. Capano, 2014 ONCA 599, 314 C.C.C. (3d) 135; R. v. Ralph, 2008 NLCA 70, 281 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 324, at para. 14; R. v. Minuskin, 2003 CanLII 11604 (ON CA), 68 O.R. (3d) 577 (C.A.), at para. 3; and R. v. A.M., 2022 ONCA 154, 160 O.R. (3d) 561, at paras. 1 and 24. . R. v. Asemota
In R. v. Asemota (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered the threshold for leave to appeal a criminal summary conviction matter:[3] The threshold test for leave to appeal to this court on a summary conviction matter is high because it involves a request for a second appeal: R. v. R.R., 2008 ONCA 497, 90 O.R. (3d) 641. ... . R. v. Kuffuor
In R. v. Kuffuor (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considers the test for granting leave to appeal in summary conviction matters:[2] The test for granting leave to appeal in a summary conviction matter is well-established. Leave should be granted sparingly, and it is restricted to a question of law alone. Two factors are generally considered: 1) the significance of the legal issues raised to the general administration of criminal justice, and 2) the merits of the proposed grounds of appeal: see R. v. R. (R.), 2008 ONCA 497, 90 O.R. (3d) 641. . R. v. Berhe
In R. v. Berhe (Ont CA, 2022) the Court of Appeal considered appeals from summary conviction matters:[9] Under s. 839(1), a court of appeal may grant leave to appeal from a decision of a summary conviction appeal court on a question of law alone. However, in R. v. R.(R.), 2008 ONCA 497, 90 O.R. (3d) 641, this court held that leave should be granted only sparingly, after a consideration of the significance of the legal errors raised to the general administration of justice, along with the merits of the proposed appeal.
|
