R. v. Letiec (S.A.), 2015 ABCA 123

• Judge: Wakeling, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: March 25, 2015
• Citations: 2015 ABCA 123;(2015), 600 A.R. 48

R. v. Letiec (S.A.) (2015), 600 A.R. 48; 645 W.A.C. 48 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. AP.061

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Scott Anthony Letiec (applicant)

(1503-0055-A; 2015 ABCA 123)

Indexed As: R. v. Letiec (S.A.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Wakeling, J.A.

April 16, 2015.

Summary:

The accused sought an extension of time so that he could apply for leave to appeal against his sentence.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Wakeling, J.A., dismissed the application.

Criminal Law - Topic 6208

Sentencing - Appeals - Variation of sentence - Extension of time to appeal (incl. service) - The accused sought an extension of time so that he could apply for leave to appeal his sentence - The accused wanted the opportunity to argue before a panel of the Court of Appeal that two post-sentencing decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) justified granting him more credit for pre-sentence custody than he had received - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Wakeling, J.A., dismissed the application - The accused did not assert that his sentence contravened the legal principles in force at the time his sentence was imposed - Thus, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, an extension of time to file his notice of appeal should not be granted - Here, the accused had pled guilty and had been sentenced in accordance with the law as it existed on the sentencing date - The two SCC judgments were released more than 10 months after his sentencing - Further, his sentence was the product of a joint submission - The accused should be held to his bargain - In the absence of extraordinary circumstances, leave for an extension to file a notice of appeal should not be granted to an accused who could not meet the ordinary test - That test was not met here - The accused had not formed an intention to appeal and communicated that intention to the Crown within the 30 day period after his sentence was imposed - Nor did he provide an adequate explanation for the 17 month delay after the deadline - These factors were more significant than the fact that allowing him the opportunity to file a late appeal might not unduly prejudice the Crown and that his appeal might have merit.

Criminal Law - Topic 6208

Sentencing - Appeals - Variation of sentence - Extension of time to appeal (incl. service) - The accused sought an extension of time so that he could apply for leave to appeal his sentence - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Wakeling, J.A., held that applicants whose convictions and sentences accorded with the law in force at the time should not be granted an extension of time to file an appeal in the absence of extraordinary circumstances - To grant relief to this group of offenders would be to ignore the principle that an offender was adjudged according to the law in force at the time of judgment (the crystallization principle) and to deny the administration of justice the benefits derived from closing a case either after appellate review was complete or the opportunity to seek appellate review had ended (the finality principle) - Section 11(i) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms expressly recognized the importance of the crystallization principle and implicitly acknowledged the value of finality in criminal proceedings - See paragraphs 28 to 55.

Criminal Law - Topic 6208

Sentencing - Appeals - Variation of sentence - Extension of time to appeal (incl. service) - The accused sought an extension of time so that he could apply for leave to appeal his sentence - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Wakeling, J.A., held that applicants who alleged that their convictions were not in accord with the law in force at the time they were convicted or sentenced might be granted an extension of time to file an appeal if they met the normal criteria - Wakeling, J.A., reviewed the law and held that a single judge of the Court of Appeal could extend the time set out in rule 843(1) of the Rules of Court within which an application for leave to appeal against sentence could be filed if it was just to do so, taking into consideration the following: (a) whether the applicant had formed an intention to appeal and notified the opposing party within the prescribed time allowed for an application to be filed; (b) whether the applicant's counsel moved diligently after counsel learned that the prescribed time for filing an appeal had expired; (c) whether the applicant had provided a reasonable explanation for the failure to apply within the prescribed time; (d) how much time separated the date the time limit for filing a leave application expired and the date the application for an extension of the time was filed; (e) whether granting or denying the extension of time would unduly prejudice the opposing party; and (f) the merits of the applicant's appeal - See paragraphs 56 to 67.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Summers (S.), [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575; 456 N.R. 1; 316 O.A.C. 349, refd to. [para. 2, footnote 1].

R. v. Carvery (L.A.), [2014] 1 S.C.R. 605; 456 N.R. 35; 343 N.S.R.(2d) 393; 1084 A.P.R. 393, refd to. [para. 2, footnote 2].

R. v. Johnson (F.B.) (2013), 553 A.R. 157; 583 W.A.C. 157; 299 C.C.C.(3d) 285 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2, footnote 3].

R. v. Khan (A.M.) (2013), 544 A.R. 123; 567 W.A.C. 123; 2013 ABCA 103, refd to. [para. 2, footnote 3].

R. v. Stonefish (S.T.) (2012), 288 Man.R.(2d) 103; 564 W.A.C. 103 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2, footnote 3].

R. v. Summers (S.) (2013), 304 O.A.C. 322; 297 C.C.C.(3d) 166 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2, footnote 3].

R. v. Henrico, 2013 QCCA 1431, refd to. [para. 2, footnote 3].

R. v. Carvery (L.A.) (2012), 321 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 1018 A.P.R. 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2, footnote 3].

R. v. Cluney (N.) (2013), 338 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 57; 1049 A.P.R. 57 (N.L.C.A.), refd to. [para. 2, footnote 3].

R. v. Bradbury (E.T.) (2013), 339 B.C.A.C. 169; 578 W.A.C. 169; 298 C.C.C.(3d) 31 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2, footnote 3].

Berro v. Berro (2001), 286 A.R. 124; 253 W.A.C. 124 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23, footnote 13].

R. v. Thomas, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 713; 108 N.R. 147, refd to. [para. 25, footnote 14].

R. v. Johnson (J.J.), [2003] 2 S.C.R. 357; 308 N.R. 333; 186 B.C.A.C. 161; 306 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 31, footnote 15].

R. v. Sarson (J.A.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 223; 197 N.R. 125; 91 O.A.C. 124, refd to. [para. 32, footnote 16].

R. v. Wigman, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 246; 75 N.R. 51, refd to. [para. 32, footnote 16].

R. v. M.A.G. (2002), 170 B.C.A.C. 305; 279 W.A.C. 305; 167 C.C.C.(3d) 435 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32, footnote 16].

R. v. Roberge (R.J.), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 469; 337 N.R. 389; 269 Sask.R. 37; 357 W.A.C. 37, refd to. [para. 37, footnote 19].

Cairns v. Cairns et al., [1931] 4 D.L.R. 819 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 37, footnote 19].

Reference Re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 3; 223 N.R. 21; 212 A.R. 161; 168 W.A.C. 161; 126 Man.R.(2d) 96; 167 W.A.C. 196; 161 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 124; 497 A.P.R. 124, refd to. [para. 37, footnote 20].

Sylvester v. New Jersey (1966), 384 U.S. 719, refd to. [para. 37, footnote 20].

People v. Rollins (1967), 65 Cal.2d 681, refd to. [para. 37, footnote 20].

R. v. Carriere (D.M.), [2014] 1 W.W.R. 117; 573 A.R. 250 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 41, footnote 22].

Linkletter v. Walker (1965), 381 U.S. 618, refd to. [para. 45, footnote 24].

R. v. Dineley (S.), [2012] 3 S.C.R. 272; 436 N.R. 59; 297 O.A.C. 50; 2012 SCC 58, refd to. [para. 45, footnote 25].

West v. Gwynne, [1911] 2 Ch. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45, footnote 25].

Landgraf v. USI Film Products (1994), 511 U.S. 244, refd to. [para. 45, footnote 25].

Australia (Republic) v. Altmann (2004), 541 U.S. 677, refd to. [para. 45, footnote 25].

Kuhn v. Fairmont Coal Co. (1910), 215 U.S. 349, refd to. [para. 45, footnote 26].

National Westminster Bank plc v. Spectrum Plus Ltd. et al., [2005] 2 A.C. 680; 338 N.R. 201 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 46, footnote 27].

R. v. Fortier (1963), 41 C.R. 211 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 48, footnote 28].

Lynn v. Mathis (1997), 519 U.S. 433, refd to. [para. 48, footnote 28].

Brill v. Korpaach Estate (1997), 200 A.R. 161; 146 W.A.C. 161; 148 D.L.R.(4th) 467 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48, footnote 29].

Brill v. Duckett - see Brill v. Korpaach Estate.

R. v. Sipos (J.P.), [2014] 2 S.C.R. 423; 460 N.R. 1; 320 O.A.C. 76; 2014 SCC 47, refd to. [para. 48, footnote 30].

R. v. Genao (R.A.), [2015] A.R. Uned. 20; 2015 ABCA 43, disagreed with [para. 49, footnote 31].

R. v. McBeath (B.J.) (2014), 359 B.C.A.C. 110; 615 W.A.C. 110; 314 C.C.C.(3d) 531 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49, footnote 31].

R. v. Vallee (R.), [2014] B.C.A.C. Uned. 65; 2014 BCCA 440, refd to. [para. 49, footnote 31].

R. v. Witso (D.G.) (2014), 356 B.C.A.C. 289; 610 W.A.C. 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49, footnote 31].

R. v. Jeffries (J.I.) (2015), 593 A.R. 366; 637 W.A.C. 366; 2015 ABCA 53, refd to. [para. 51, footnote 35].

Sayers v. Clarke Walker, [2002] 3 All E.R. 490 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57, footnote 40].

R. v. Bandesha (K.S.) (2013), 553 A.R. 135; 583 W.A.C. 135; 2013 ABCA 181, refd to. [para. 58, footnote 41].

R. v. Morin (W.J.) (2005), 257 Sask.R. 307; 342 W.A.C. 307; 195 C.C.C.(3d) 190 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58, footnote 41].

Burkinshaw v. Bodruk (1979), 14 A.R. 376 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61, footnote 44].

Nicholson v. Piper (1907), 24 Times L.R. 16 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61, footnote 44].

Hill v. Barwis (1908), 9 W.L.R. 274 (Alta. S.C.), refd to. [para. 63, footnote 46].

Coles and Ravenshear, Re, [1907] 1 K.B. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63, footnote 46].

Helsby, Re, [1894] 1 Q.B. 742 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63, footnote 46].

Rhodes v. Jenkins (1878), 7 Ch. D. 711 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63, footnote 46].

International Financial Society v. Moscow Gas Co. (1877), 47 L.J. Ch. 258 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63, footnote 46].

Royal Bank of Canada v. Morin et al. (1977), 6 A.R. 341 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63, footnote 46].

Ramsdell v. Elliott, [1937] 1 D.L.R. 269 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 63, footnote 46].

R. v. Kivell, [1990] B.C.J. No. 2430 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63, footnote 46].

Wigfull & Sons Ltd. Trade Mark, Re (1918), 88 L.J. Ch. 30 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63, footnote 46].

R. v. Lennon (R.D.B.) (2012), 524 A.R. 85; 545 W.A.C. 85; 2012 ABCA 53, refd to. [para. 63, footnote 46].

Rose v. Bulkowski (2000), 271 A.R. 363; 234 W.A.C. 363 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64, footnote 47].

Leung v. Clark et al. (2001), 286 A.R. 112; 253 W.A.C. 112 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64, footnote 48].

Palata Investments Ltd. v. Burt & Sinfield Ltd., [1985] 2 All E.R. 517 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64, footnote 48].

Petryga v. Alberta (1980), 26 A.R. 290 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64, footnote 50].

Sohal v. Brar, [1999] 7 W.W.R. 345; 223 A.R. 141; 183 W.A.C. 141 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64, footnote 50].

R. v. Smart (R.C.) (2013), 566 A.R. 241; 597 W.A.C. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66, footnote 52].

R. v. Chan (N.) (2012), 536 A.R. 159; 559 W.A.C. 159; 292 C.C.C.(3d) 19 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66, footnote 52].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 843(1) [para. 13].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cardoza, Benjamin N., The Nature of the Judicial Process (1921), p. 146 [para. 45, footnote 24].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (6th Ed. 2014), p. 757 [para. 45, footnote 25].

Counsel:

M.J. Tordoff, for the applicant;

J.B. Dartana, for the respondent.

This application was heard on March 25, 2015, by Wakeling, J.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal, who delivered the following decision on April 16, 2015.