R. v. Glasner (E.), (1994) 74 O.A.C. 81 (CA)

• Judge: Brooke, Labrosse and Laskin, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: April 07, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1994), 74 O.A.C. 81 (CA)

R. v. Glasner (E.) (1994), 74 O.A.C. 81 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Earl Glasner (appellant)

(File No. C8879)

Indexed As: R. v. Glasner (E.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Brooke, Labrosse and Laskin, JJ.A.

September 6, 1994.

Summary:

The accused criminal lawyer failed to appear twice on a case. He was convicted of contempt and fined $2,000. The accused appealed his conviction and applied for leave to appeal the sentence.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Labrosse, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and entered an acquittal.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 673

Duty to court - Contempt - What consti­tutes - [See Contempt - Topic 510 ].

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 720

Duty to court - Appearances - Re double booking - [See Contempt - Topic 510 ].

Contempt - Topic 6

General principles - Power of courts - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed when the criminal contempt power should be exercised - The court also discussed the elements of the offence of criminal contempt - See paragraphs 22 to 30.

Contempt - Topic 41

Elements of contempt - General - [See Contempt - Topic 6 ].

Contempt - Topic 42

Elements of contempt - Mens rea - [See Contempt - Topic 6 ].

Contempt - Topic 510

What constitutes contempt - Criminal contempt - The accused criminal lawyer failed to appear twice on a case because he was tied up in other court matters (double booked) - Although he explained his absences and apologized, the judge con­victed him of contempt and fined him $2,000 - The Ontario Court of Appeal set aside the conviction where the verdict was unreas­onable - The lawyer's conduct was dis­courteous, but did not constitute crimi­nal contempt - The judge misapprehended the evidence (i.e., the lawyer had failed to appear when a matter was to be spoken to, rather than for a pretrial) - Further, the judge disre­garded the lawyer's explanation and apol­ogy.

Contempt - Topic 1165

What constitutes contempt - Counsel - Failure to appear - [See Contempt - Topic 510 ].

Contempt - Topic 5022

Practice - Notice - Requirement of - A lawyer failed to appear twice in a criminal proceeding and was convicted of contempt - The lawyer appealed, alleging a denial of procedural fairness because of inad­equate notice and because the judge before whom he failed to appear heard the con­tempt matter - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that although the notice was inadequate, there was no lack of fair­ness where the judge offered the accused an adjournment - Further, although it might be desirable where there is no urgency or impracticality, or where there would be no adverse effect on a pending proceeding, to have another judge conduct the contempt hearing, here the lawyer took no objection to the judge hearing the mat­ter and the judge was following a well-established practice.

Contempt - Topic 5105

Practice - Hearing - Who should act as judge - [See Contempt - Topic 5022 ].

Contempt - Topic 5541

Jurisdiction to punish for contempt - Criminal courts - General principles - [See Contempt - Topic 6 ].

Cases Noticed:

United Nurses of Alberta v. Alberta (At­torney General), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 901; [1992] 3 W.W.R. 481; 135 N.R. 321; 125 A.R. 241; 14 W.A.C. 241; 1 Alta. L.R.(2d) 129; [1992] 3 W.W.R. 481, refd to. [para. 19].

Attorney General v. Leveller Magazine, [1979] A.C. 440 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 20].

British Columbia Government Employees' Union v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214; 87 N.R. 241; 71 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 93; 220 A.P.R. 93; 31 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273, refd to. [para. 21].

Poje v. British Columbia (Attorney Gen­eral), [1953] 1 S.C.R. 516, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Fox (1976), 30 C.C.C.(2d) 330 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Izuora (J.O.) v. R., [1953] A.C. 327 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Kopyto (1987), 24 O.A.C. 81; 39 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd., [1973] 3 All E.R. 54 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Anders (1982), 67 C.C.C.(2d) 138 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Danson (1981), 57 C.C.C.(2d) 519 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Kopyto (1981), 60 C.C.C.(2d) 85 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [1981] 1 S.C.R. xii; 38 N.R. 540, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Barbacki - see Lalande (Juge) v. Barbacki.

Lalande (Juge) v. Barbacki (1992), 50 Q.A.C. 260; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 549 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

McKeown v. R., [1971] S.C.R. 446, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Doz (1985), 59 A.R. 185; 19 C.C.C.(3d) 434 (C.A.), revd. [1987] 2 S.C.R. 463; 79 N.R. 151; 82 A.R. 394; 38 C.C.C.(3d) 479, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Quercia (1990), 41 O.A.C. 305; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 380 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Biddle (E.R.) (1993), 65 O.A.C. 20; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 430 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 59 C.R.(3d) 108; 17 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; [1987] 6 W.W.R. 97; 43 D.L.R.(4th) 424, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Hill (1976), 33 C.C.C.(2d) 60 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Aster (No. 1) (1980), 57 C.C.C.(2d) 450 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Swartz (1977), 34 C.C.C.(2d) 477 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Burns (R.H.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656; 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 67 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 45, 62].

R. v. Harper, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 2; 40 N.R. 255, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Jones (1978), 42 C.C.C.(2d) 192 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Pinx (1979), 1 Man.R.(2d) 1; 50 C.C.C.(2d) 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Hill (1976), 33 C.C.C.(2d) 60 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199; 113 N.R. 241; 42 O.A.C. 81; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 79 C.R.(3d) 273; 49 C.R.R. 1; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 355; 75 O.R.(2d) 673, refd to. [para. 66].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 9 [para. 19]; sect. 686(1)(a)(i) [para. 34].

Counsel:

Irwin Koziebrocki, for the appellant;

S. Casey Hill, for the Crown, respondent.

Edward L. Greenspan, Q.C., for the Ontario Criminal Lawyers' Association, intervenor.

This appeal was heard on April 7, 1994, before Brooke, Labrosse and Laskin, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The decision was released on September 6, 1994, includ­ing the following opinions:

Laskin, J.A. (Brooke, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 49;

Labrosse, J.A., dissenting - see para­graphs 50 to 69.