R. v. Roks (A.) et al.,

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Judge: Winkler, C.J.O.
• Neutral Citation: 2010 ONCA 182
• Citation: 2010 ONCA 182,(2010), 275 O.A.C. 146 (CA),275 OAC 146,(2010), 275 OAC 146 (CA),275 O.A.C. 146
• Date: 03 March 2010
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)

R. v. Roks (A.) (2010), 275 O.A.C. 146 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] O.A.C. TBEd. AU.075

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Adrian Roks (appellant)

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Jason Shand (appellant)

(M38533 (C48418/C47483); 2010 ONCA 182)

Indexed As: R. v. Roks (A.) et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Winkler, C.J.O.

March 9, 2010.

Summary:

The Crown theorized that Magno, the part-owner of a business destroyed by arson, knew of and instructed Roks and Paskalis to commit the arson. Jarcevic, the arsonist, died in the fire. Both Magno and Roks were charged with second degree murder in Jarcevic's death. Roks's trial proceeded first. He was convicted. He appealed, challenging the constitutionality of s. 229(c) of the Criminal Code. There was also before the court a second appeal, originating in an unrelated incident, in which the appellant Shand also challenged s. 229(c). Magno, whose trial had been delayed for reasons beyond his control, applied for intervenor status in both appeals.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, per Winkler, C.J.O., allowed the application.

Criminal Law - Topic 4974.1

Appeals - Indictable offences - Powers of Court of Appeal - Granting intervenor status (incl. amicus curiae) - The Crown theorized that Magno, the part-owner of a business destroyed by arson, knew of and instructed Roks and Paskalis to commit the arson - Jarcevic, the arsonist, died in the fire - Both Magno and Roks were charged with second degree murder in Jarcevic's death - Roks's trial proceeded first - He was convicted - He appealed, challenging the constitutionality of s. 229(c) of the Criminal Code - There was also before the court a second appeal, originating in an unrelated incident, in which the appellant Shand also challenged s. 229(c) - Magno, whose trial had been delayed for reasons beyond his control, applied for intervenor status in both appeals - The Ontario Court of Appeal, per Winkler, C.J.O., allowed the application - Magno should not be prejudiced because Roks's trial happened first - Because Magno was one step removed from the actual execution of the arson, he would bring a helpful perspective on how liability under s. 229(c) could play out under various scenarios - Finally, the equities of the case favoured Magno's intervention - See paragraphs 1 to 15.

Cases Noticed:

Bedford et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2009), 255 O.A.C. 21; 2009 ONCA 669, refd to. [para. 5].

Peel (Regional Municipality) v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada Ltd. (1990), 74 O.R.(2d) 164 (C.A.), consd. [para. 5].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme (1987), 20 O.A.C. 345; 50 C.R.(3d) 395 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Finta (I.), [1991] 1 O.R.(3d) 183; 44 O.A.C. 349 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Counsel:

Marie Henein and Matthew Gourlay for the applicant;

Alison Wheeler for the respondent.

This application was heard in Chambers on March 3, 2010, by Winkler, C.J.O., of the Ontario Court of Appeal, who delivered the following decision on March 9, 2010.