Foreword

• Author: Jill R. Presser
• Profession: Presser Barristers
• Pages: 11-13

xi

“It ain’t over til it’s over.”

—Yogi Berra

Appeals of criminal convictions and sentences are a relatively new phenomenon in the

common law world—they are just over a century or so old.1 Appeals are solely creatures

of statute that may not be available in every situation, or that may be available only

with leave.2 And yet, the right to appeal, to “‘push the reset button’ and have another

go,”3 is a cherished one. The Supreme Court of Canada has, perhaps not surprisingly,

recognized the importance of access to review by higher courts: “[R]ights of appeal



courts and tribunals.”4



are essential to the legitimacy of the criminal trial process. These values militate against

the wide availability of criminal appeals.5

But to the criminal appellant, the right to appeal feels fundamental. To a society

concerned with doing justice, meaningful appeals are essential. The prevention of

wrongful convictions is accomplished through the appellate courts’ error-correcting

function. Appeals are bulwarks against unfairness, miscarriages of justice, violations

of constitutional rights, and conviction of the innocent.6  

Foreword

1 Peter McCormick, “Try, Try Again: Appeals from the Manitoba Court of Appeal to the

 

2 Dagenais v Canadian Broadcasting Corp, [1994] 3 SCR 835; Mills vR, [1986] 1 SCR 863;

Kourtessis v Canada (Minister of National Revenue), .

3 Supra note 1.

4 HL v Canada (ttorney General), 2005 SCC 25, [2005] 1 SCR 401

5 R v RR, 2008 ONCA 497 at para 16.

6 Bruce A MacFarlane, QC “Wrongful Convictions: Determining Culpability When the Sand

