R. v. Hordyski (S.N.), (2014) 442 Sask.R. 310 (CA)

• Judge: Herauf, Whitmore and Ryan-Froslie, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: September 26, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2014), 442 Sask.R. 310 (CA);2014 SKCA 102

R. v. Hordyski (S.N.) (2014), 442 Sask.R. 310 (CA);

    616 W.A.C. 310

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Sask.R. TBEd. OC.016

Stephen Norman Hordyski (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(CACR2304; 2014 SKCA 102)

Indexed As: R. v. Hordyski (S.N.)

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Herauf, Whitmore and Ryan-Froslie, JJ.A.

September 26, 2014.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of theft under $5,000, contrary to s. 334(b) of the Criminal Code. He appealed, contending that his trial counsel was incompetent because he failed to call corroborating evidence that would have proved the accused did not have the intent to commit the offence.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 4488

Procedure - Trial - Representation of accused - [See Criminal Law - Topic 7654 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 7654

Summary conviction proceedings - Appeals - Grounds - Incompetent representation or erroneous legal advice - Hordyski was in a store with his young son and the mother of his son (Peters) - He was observed by a loss prevention officer shoplifting merchandise - Hordyski claimed that his reason for leaving the store with the items was to look for Peters so she could take their son to the bathroom - Hordyski was convicted of theft under $5,000 - He appealed, arguing that his trial counsel was incompetent because he failed to call corroborating evidence to bolster the theory that Hordyski's relationship with Peters was dysfunctional and to confirm the extent of his debilitating back injury - Hordyski argued that that evidence would prove he did not have the specific intent to commit the offence - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The trial judge accepted Hordyski's evidence respecting his back injury and the nature of his relationship with Peters, but rejected the contention that it raised a reasonable doubt as to his intent to steal the items when he left the store - There was nothing unreasonable about trial counsel's alleged failure to call corroborating evidence on these issues when the proposed evidence did not relate to material issues but only to facts that the trial judge had already accepted.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. G.D.B., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 520; 253 N.R. 201; 261 A.R. 1; 225 W.A.C. 1; 2000 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 8].

Counsel:

Stephen Hordyski, on his own behalf;

Erin Schroh, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on September 26, 2014, before Herauf, Whitmore and Ryan-Froslie, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, who dismissed the appeal orally on the same date. Herauf, J.A., filed the following written reasons for the court on September 30, 2014.