R. v. Ho (G.D.),

• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Judge: Finch
• Neutral Citation: 2002 BCCA 672
• Citation: 2002 BCCA 672,(2002), 177 B.C.A.C. 66 (CA),177 BCAC 66,(2002), 177 BCAC 66 (CA),177 B.C.A.C. 66
• Date: 27 November 2002
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)

R. v. Ho (G.D.) (2002), 177 B.C.A.C. 66 (CA);

    291 W.A.C. 66

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] B.C.A.C. TBEd. FE.037

Regina (appellant) v. Gou Din Ho (respondent)

(CA029850; 2002 BCCA 672)

Indexed As: R. v. Ho (G.D.)

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Finch, C.J.B.C.

December 10, 2002.

Summary:

The accused and three others were charged with conspiracy to import heroin into Canada. A voir dire was in progress. The accused discharged his lawyer, who was funded by legal aid. The trial judge severed the accused's trial from that of the others. The accused applied for the appointment of new counsel. The accused found another lawyer to assist him. The Crown agreed to fund the accused's defence, through the Legal Services Society, at legal aid rates. The new lawyer declined to act at such rates. The trial judge ruled that the rate of payment should be negotiated. The Crown refused to negotiate. The trial judge stayed the pro­ceedings against the accused. The Crown appealed the stay. Meanwhile, the accused was deported. At issue was whether the issue of mootness should be argued separately and in advance of the substantive issues on appeal.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Finch, C.J.B.C., directed that the issue of mootness be raised on the hearing of the appeal proper.

Practice - Topic 8858

Appeals - Bar or loss of right of appeal - Moot issues - The trial judge stayed con­spiracy to import heroin charges against an accused because the Crown refused to negotiate the rate of payment for new defence counsel, which the Crown had agreed to fund - The Crown appealed the stay - Meanwhile, the accused was deported - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Finch, C.J.B.C., directed that the issue of mootness of the appeal should not be argued separately and in advance of the substantive issues on the appeal, but raised on the hearing of the appeal proper.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Rowbotham et al. (1988), 25 O.A.C. 321; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Fisher, [1997] S.J. No. 530 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 9].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Stuart, J., and Savard (1996), 74 B.C.A.C. 81; 121 W.A.C. 81; 106 C.C.C.(3d) 130 (Y.T.C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Dietrich v. R. (1992), 109 A.L.R. 385 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Rain (M.M.) (1998), 223 A.R. 359; 183 W.A.C. 359; 130 C.C.C.(3d) 167 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. J.G. and D.V., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46; 244 N.R. 276; 216 N.B.R.(2d) 25; 552 A.P.R. 25, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Prosper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 236; 172 N.R. 161; 133 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 380 A.P.R. 321, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Curragh Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 537; 209 N.R. 252; 159 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 468 A.P.R. 1; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Rockwood (1989), 91 N.S.R.(2d) 305; 233 A.P.R. 305; 49 C.C.C.(3d) 129 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Potts (L.) (1995), 136 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 178; 423 A.P.R. 178 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Howell (D.M.) (1995), 146 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 422 A.P.R. 1 (C.A.), affd. [1996] 3 S.C.R. 604; 203 N.R. 247; 155 N.S.R.(2d) 58; 457 A.P.R. 58, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Chan (M.K.) et al. (2000), 276 A.R. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 9].

J.W. v. M.E.S. et al., [2000] B.C.T.C. 746; 72 C.R.R.(2d) 293 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Johal (B.) et al. (1998), 110 B.C.A.C. 146; 178 W.A.C. 146; 127 C.C.C.(3d) 273 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R.C. v. Québec (Procureur général) (2002), 289 N.R. 206; 164 C.C.C.(3d) 423 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Beauchamps - see R.C. v. Québec (Procureur général).

R. v. G.D.B., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 520; 253 N.R. 201; 261 A.R. 1; 225 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 9].

Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82, refd to. [para. 11].

Counsel:

D. Frankel, Q.C., for the appellant;

P.W. Wilson, Q.C., amicus curiae.

This application was heard in Chambers on November 27, 2002, at Vancouver, British Columbia, before Finch, C.J.B.C., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, who delivered the following judgment on Decem­ber 10, 2002.