R. v. Franc (D.), (2015) 472 Sask.R. 167 (CA)

• Judge: Richards, C.J.S., Whitmore and Ryan-Froslie, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: December 17, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2015), 472 Sask.R. 167 (CA);2015 SKCA 146

R. v. Franc (D.) (2015), 472 Sask.R. 167 (CA);

    658 W.A.C. 167

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. DE.077

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant/respondent) v. David Franc (respondent/applicant)

(CACR2639; 2015 SKCA 146)

Indexed As: R. v. Franc (D.)

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Richards, C.J.S., Whitmore and Ryan-Froslie, JJ.A.

December 21, 2015.

Summary:

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal of trafficking in cocaine. The Crown was granted an extension of time to serve the notice of appeal pursuant to s. 678(2) of the Criminal Code. The accused had not attended on the application. The accused applied for an opportunity to argue against the validity of the order. He said that he did not understand the meaning of the Crown's s. 678(2) application when it was served on him and, therefore, he did not respond to it.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the application. The Code did not create a right of appeal from an order granting an extension of time pursuant to s. 678(2). Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the accused's application.

Courts - Topic 2106

Jurisdiction - Appellate jurisdiction - Court of Appeal - Criminal appeals - The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal of trafficking in cocaine - The Crown was granted an extension of time to serve the notice of appeal pursuant to s. 678(2) of the Criminal Code - The accused had not attended on the application - The accused applied for an opportunity to argue against the validity of the order - He said that he did not understand the meaning of the Crown's s. 678(2) application when it was served on him and, therefore, he did not respond to it - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the application - Rights of appeal were wholly statutory and rights of appeal in the criminal context were specified in the Criminal Code - The Code did not create a right of appeal from an order granting an extension of time pursuant to s. 678(2) - Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the accused's application.

Criminal Law - Topic 4909

Appeals - Indictable offences - Procedure - Notice of appeal or application for leave to appeal - Time for filing or serving - [See Courts - Topic 2106 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Butchko (C.L.), [2005] 11 W.W.R. 95; 257 Sask.R. 41; 342 W.A.C. 41; 2004 SKCA 159, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Harness (G.J.) (2005), 367 A.R. 259; 346 W.A.C. 259; 2005 ABCA 245, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. O'Malley (W.) (1997), 96 B.C.A.C. 236; 155 W.A.C. 236; 119 C.C.C.(3d) 360 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76; 315 N.R. 201; 183 O.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Meltzer and Laison, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1764; 96 N.R. 391, refd to. [para. 12].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 678(2) [para. 3].

Counsel:

Wade E. McBride, for the appellant;

Marcel Simonot, Q.C., for the respondent.

This application was heard on December 17, 2015, by Richards, C.J.S., Whitmore and Ryan-Froslie, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. Richards, C.J.S., delivered the following decision for the court on December 21, 2015.