R. v. Shea (T.R.), (2010) 263 O.A.C. 369 (SCC)
| Judge | LeBel, Deschamps and Cromwell, JJ. |
| Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
| Case Date | July 15, 2010 |
| Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
| Citations | (2010), 263 O.A.C. 369 (SCC);2010 SCC 26;[2010] 2 SCR 17;263 OAC 369;403 NR 372 |
R. v. Shea (T.R.) (2010), 263 O.A.C. 369 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
.........................
Temp. Cite: [2010] O.A.C. TBEd. JL.059
Her Majesty The Queen (applicant) v. Thomas Robert Shea (respondent)
(33466; 2010 SCC 26; 2010 CSC 26)
Indexed As: R. v. Shea (T.R.)
Supreme Court of Canada
LeBel, Deschamps and Cromwell, JJ.
July 15, 2010.
Summary:
The accused was convicted of sexual offences and was sentenced to imprisonment for two years less a day. Some 8.5 years later, the accused brought a motion before a single Ontario Court of Appeal judge for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal from his conviction. The judge denied the motion. Subsequently, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeal granted the motion in the interests of justice. The Crown applied for leave to appeal under s. 40(1) of the Supreme Court Act, challenging the jurisdiction of the three-judge panel to overturn the decision by the single judge. The accused challenged the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to grant leave.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that it had jurisdiction under s. 40(1) to hear the appeal. However, the court denied leave to appeal.
Criminal Law - Topic 9081
Appeals to Supreme Court of Canada - Appeals with leave - General (incl. when required) - The accused was convicted of sexual offences and was sentenced to imprisonment for two years less a day - Some 8.5 years later, the accused brought a motion before a single Ontario Court of Appeal judge for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal against his conviction - The judge denied the motion - Subsequently, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeal granted the motion in the interests of justice - The Crown applied for leave to appeal under s. 40(1) of the Supreme Court Act, challenging the jurisdiction of the three-judge panel to overturn the decision of the single judge - The accused challenged the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to grant leave - The Supreme Court of Canada held that it had jurisdiction under s. 40(1) to grant leave - However, the court denied leave to appeal - The court stated that "under s. 40(1) of the Act, the court has jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal from an order 'of the Federal Court of Appeal or of the highest court of final resort in a province, or a judge thereof, in which judgment can be had in the particular case' refusing or granting an extension of time to an appellant in an indictable appeal and that the order from which leave to appeal is sought is such an order. However, I would emphasize that the existence of this jurisdiction does not in any way alter the test applicable under s. 40(1), namely that the question 'is, by reason of its public importance or the importance of any issue of law or any issue of mixed law and fact involved in that question, one that ought to be decided by the Supreme Court or is, for any other reasons, of such a nature or significance as to warrant decision by it'. It seems to me that only in very rare circumstances would a proposed appeal from an order granting an extension of time for appealing meet this test" - See paragraphs 1 to 12.
Practice - Topic 9091
Appeals - Supreme Court of Canada - Leave to appeal by Supreme Court of Canada - [See Criminal Law - Topic 9081 ].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Hind, [1968] S.C.R. 234, not folld. [para. 4].
R. v. Goldhar, [1960] S.C.R. 60, overruled [para. 4].
R. v. Paul, [1960] S.C.R. 452, overruled [para. 4].
R. v. Alepin (J.) Frères Ltée, [1965] S.C.R. 359, overruled [para. 4].
R. v. Hill (No. 2), [1977] 1 S.C.R. 827; 7 N.R. 373, appld. [para. 5].
R. v. Gardiner, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 368; 43 N.R. 361, refd to. [para. 5].
R. v. MacDonald, [1965] S.C.R. 831, refd to. [para. 7].
Ernewein v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 639; 30 N.R. 316, refd to. [para. 9].
Montreal (City) v. MacDonald, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 460; 67 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 9].
Dorion v. Roberge et al., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 374; 124 N.R. 1; 39 Q.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 9].
R. v. Hinse (R.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 597; 189 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 10].
R. v. Mentuck (C.G.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 442; 277 N.R. 160; 163 Man.R.(2d) 1; 269 W.A.C. 1; 2001 SCC 76, refd to. [para. 11].
Statutes Noticed:
Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, sect. 40(1) [para. 3].
Counsel:
[not disclosed]
Solicitors of Record:
[not disclosed]
This application was heard before LeBel, Deschamps and Cromwell, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On July 15, 2010, Cromwell, J., delivered the following judgment in both official languages for the Court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R. v. Sullivan, 2022 SCC 19
...Strata Plan BCS 4006 v. Jameson House Ventures Ltd., 2017 BCSC 1988, 4 B.C.L.R. (6th) 370; R. v. Hinse, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 597; R. v. Shea, 2010 SCC 26, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 17; Saumur v. Recorder’s Court (Quebec), [1947] S.C.R. 492; Kourtessis v. M.N.R., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 53; R. v. Carosella, [1997]......
-
Appeals
...of such a nature or significance as to warrant decision by it.” 5 [1994] 3 SCR 835 [ Dagenais ]. 6 2010 SCC 10. 7 [1994] 3 SCR 965. 8 2010 SCC 26. 9 2001 SCC 14. 10 2002 SCC 32. Appeals 563 Court the benefit of a fuller record and input from that lower court. They suggested that this gap in......
-
Table of cases
...332 R v Sharma, [1993] 1 SCR 650, 79 CCC (3d) 142, 1993 CanLII 165 ................. 318 R v Shea, 2010 SCC 26 ........................................................................................ 562 R v Shearing, [2002] 3 SCR 33, 165 CCC (3d) 225, 2002 SCC 58 .....380, 382, 589 R v She......
-
Anglehart c. Canada,
...of the legality of a public body’s decision and the rules of civil liability (Finney v. Barreau du Québec, 2004 SCC 36, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 17; Entreprises Sibeca Inc. v. Frelighsburg (Municipality), 2004 SCC 61, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 304; and Paradis Honey Ltd. v. Canada, 2015 FCA 89, [2......
-
R. v. Sullivan, 2022 SCC 19
...Strata Plan BCS 4006 v. Jameson House Ventures Ltd., 2017 BCSC 1988, 4 B.C.L.R. (6th) 370; R. v. Hinse, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 597; R. v. Shea, 2010 SCC 26, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 17; Saumur v. Recorder’s Court (Quebec), [1947] S.C.R. 492; Kourtessis v. M.N.R., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 53; R. v. Carosella, [1997]......
-
Anglehart c. Canada,
...of the legality of a public body’s decision and the rules of civil liability (Finney v. Barreau du Québec, 2004 SCC 36, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 17; Entreprises Sibeca Inc. v. Frelighsburg (Municipality), 2004 SCC 61, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 304; and Paradis Honey Ltd. v. Canada, 2015 FCA 89, [2......
-
BARBAGIANIS v. RICHMOND, 2018 SKQB 266
...Reliance is placed on Haug and its application of Enterprises Sibeca, itself relying on Finney v Barreau du Québec, 2004 SCC 36, [2004] 2 SCR 17 [Finney]. [220] In Haug, Klebuc J. (as he then was) stated as follows: [15] … What constitutes bad faith by a public officer was canvassed by the ......
-
Memon v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2015 FC 908
...of other doctrines plays no role in changing the essential nature and issue of an interim application ( Behn v Moulton Contracting Ltd , 2010 SCC 26, [2013] 2 SCR 227). [36] Similarly, the fact that an abuse of process for delay requires the applicant to demonstrate significant prejudice, w......
-
Appealing To The Supreme Court Of Canada From A Refusal Of Leave To Appeal By A Provincial Court Of Appeal
...This principle, in my opinion, also applies in respect of any issue on which required leave to-appeal is required. In R. v. Shea, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 17, however, the SCC may have re-opened the door to hearing an application for leave to appeal a refusal of leave to appeal below although Shea w......
-
Appeals
...of such a nature or significance as to warrant decision by it.” 5 [1994] 3 SCR 835 [ Dagenais ]. 6 2010 SCC 10. 7 [1994] 3 SCR 965. 8 2010 SCC 26. 9 2001 SCC 14. 10 2002 SCC 32. Appeals 563 Court the benefit of a fuller record and input from that lower court. They suggested that this gap in......
-
Table of cases
...332 R v Sharma, [1993] 1 SCR 650, 79 CCC (3d) 142, 1993 CanLII 165 ................. 318 R v Shea, 2010 SCC 26 ........................................................................................ 562 R v Shearing, [2002] 3 SCR 33, 165 CCC (3d) 225, 2002 SCC 58 .....380, 382, 589 R v She......
-
Table of cases
...321, [1991] S.C.J. No. 62 ....... 5 R. v. Sharma (1995), 67 B.C.A.C. 241, [1995] B.C.J. No. 2680 (C.A.) ................ 286 R. v. Shea, 2010 SCC 26 ...................................................................................... 393 R. v. Shearing, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 33, 165 C.C.C. (3d)......
-
Table of cases
...No 2680 (CA) ...................... 324–25 R v Sharma, [1993] 1 SCR 650, 79 CCC (3d) 142, 1993 CanLII 165 .................230 R v Shea, 2010 SCC 26 ........................................................................................ 438 R v Shearing, [2002] 3 SCR 33, 165 CCC (3d) 225, ......