R. v. R.E.M., (2011) 304 N.S.R.(2d) 246 (CA)

• Judge: Bryson, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: May 05, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (2011), 304 N.S.R.(2d) 246 (CA);2011 NSCA 58

R. v. R.E.M. (2011), 304 N.S.R.(2d) 246 (CA);

    960 A.P.R. 246

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. JN.030

R.E.M. (applicant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(CAC 334444; 2011 NSCA 58)

Indexed As: R. v. R.E.M.

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Bryson, J.A.

June 9, 2011.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of touching, for a sexual purpose, a person under the age of 14 and sexual assault. The Crown proceeded summarily. The touching offence was stayed. The accused was sentenced to time served given the length of time he had spent in pre-trial custody. The accused appealed. Boudreau, J., dismissed the appeal. The accused brought a motion for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal and a notice of appeal.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, per Beveridge, J.A., in a decision reported at 299 N.S.R.(2d) 258; 947 A.P.R. 258, dismissed the motion. The accused wanted to move to have a panel of the appellate court review the order of Beveridge, J.A. However, he was out of time to do so. Therefore, he sought leave to extend the time to have his motion for leave to review heard by the Chief Justice.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, per Bryson, J.A., held that, assuming that he had jurisdiction to entertain the motion, there was no merit to the request for a review and thus no basis for extending time to allow for it. There was nothing upon which the Chief Justice could exercise his discretion to refer the matter to a panel for review.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Criminal Law - Topic 7468

Summary conviction proceedings - Appeals - General - Extension of time for appealing - The accused was convicted of sexual assault (summary conviction) - The accused appealed - Boudreau, J., dismissed the appeal - The accused sought an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal and a notice of appeal - The Crown argued that it was not in the interests of justice to extend the time because the accused's proposed grounds of appeal were devoid of merit - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, per Beveridge, J.A., agreed and dismissed the motion - The court could not discern any arguable issue upon which leave to appeal could be granted - The accused wanted to move to have a panel of the appellate court review the order of Beveridge, J.A. - However, he was out of time to do so - Therefore, he sought leave to extend the time to have his motion for leave to review heard by the Chief Justice - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, per Bryson, J.A., held that, assuming that he had jurisdiction to entertain the motion, there was no merit to the request for a review and thus no basis for extending time to allow for it - There was nothing upon which the Chief Justice could exercise his discretion to refer the matter to a panel for review.

Cases Noticed:

Luke v. Luke (2009), 275 N.S.R.(2d) 198; 877 A.P.R. 198; 2009 NSCA 23, refd to. [para. 9].

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

R. v. Miller (K.S.) (2000), 139 B.C.A.C. 68; 227 W.A.C. 68; 2000 BCCA 329, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Moolla (M.) (2008), 314 Sask.R. 219; 435 W.A.C. 219; 2008 SKCA 143, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Giesbrecht (E.H.) (2008), 231 Man.R.(2d) 77; 437 W.A.C. 77; 2008 MBCA 102, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Harness (G.J.) (2005), 367 A.R. 259; 346 W.A.C. 259; 2005 ABCA 245, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. O'Malley (W.) (1997), 96 B.C.A.C. 236; 155 W.A.C. 236 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Melanson (S.) (2006), 305 N.B.R.(2d) 91; 791 A.P.R. 91 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Kourtessis et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 53; 153 N.R. 1; 27 B.C.A.C. 81; 45 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Keating (1991), 106 N.S.R.(2d) 63; 288 A.P.R. 63 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Dempsey (B.) (1995), 138 N.S.R.(2d) 110; 394 A.P.R. 110 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Wood (J.D.) (1999), 180 N.S.R.(2d) 110; 557 A.P.R. 110; 1999 NSCA 124, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. MacIntosh (E.F.) (2008), 268 N.S.R.(2d) 131; 857 A.P.R. 131; 2008 NSCA 73, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Gelz (1990), 55 C.C.C.(3d) 425 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Stojanovski (A.) (2002), 179 B.C.A.C. 287; 295 W.A.C. 287; 2002 BCCA 679, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Gillespie (G.D.) (1997), 115 Man.R.(2d) 161; 139 W.A.C. 161; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 461 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Johnson (O.) (2001), 281 A.R. 368; 248 W.A.C. 368; 155 C.C.C.(3d) 506; 2001 ABCA 161, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Lighting, [1993] A.J. No. 404 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Scherba (A.) (2001), 146 O.A.C. 99; 54 O.R.(3d) 555 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Walker (1978), 46 C.C.C.(2d) 124 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Lamontagne (Y.) (1994), 66 Q.A.C. 204 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Bellefontaine v. Schneiderman, [2006] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 79; 2006 NSCA 96, refd to. [para. 22].

Farrell v. Casavant (2010), 294 N.S.R.(2d) 292; 933 A.P.R. 292; 2010 NSCA 71, refd to. [para. 23].

Cummings et al. v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Community Services) et al. (2011), 297 N.S.R.(2d) 331; 943 A.P.R. 331; 2011 NSCA 2, refd to. [para. 23].

Marshall v. Truro (Town) et al. (2009), 283 N.S.R.(2d) 37; 900 A.P.R. 37; 2009 NSCA 89, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Liberatore (M.V.) (2010), 292 N.S.R.(2d) 69; 925 A.P.R. 69; 2010 NSCA 26, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Liberatore (M.V.), [2010] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 84; 2010 NSCA 33, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Liberatore (M.V.) (2010), 299 N.S.R.(2d) 53; 947 A.P.R. 53; 2010 NSCA 82, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Trueman (D.) (2008), 325 Sask.R. 252; 2008 SKQB 335, dist. [para. 39].

R. v. R.E.M. (2008), 380 N.R. 47; 260 B.C.A.C. 40; 439 W.A.C. 40; 2008 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 40].

Counsel:

Applicant, in person;

Mark Scott, for the respondent.

This motion for leave to review was heard in Chambers, on May 5, 2011, by Bryson, J.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, who filed the following decision at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on June 9, 2011.