View source for Appeal on Miscarriage of Justice

{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderAppeals}}
==General Principles==
Under s.686(1)(a)(iii), the defence may appeal a conviction based on a miscarriage of justice:
{{quotation2|
686 (1) On the hearing of an appeal against a conviction or against a verdict that the appellant is unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, the court of appeal 
:(a) may allow the appeal where it is of the opinion that 
::{{removed|(i) and (ii)}} 
::(iii) on any ground there was a miscarriage of justice;
:{{removed|(b), (c), (d) and (e)}} 
{{removed|(2), (3), (4), (5), (5.01), (5.1), (5.2), (6), (7) and (8)}}
R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. C-46}}, s. 686; R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.)}}, ss. 145, 203; {{LegHistory90s|1991, c. 43}}, s. 9; {{LegHistory90s|1997, c. 18}}, s. 98; {{LegHistory90s|1999, c. 3}}, s. 52, c. 5, s. 26; 2015, c. 3, s. 54(F).

|[{{CCCSec|686}} CCC]
|{{NoteUp|686|1}}
}}

A miscarriage of justice may arise in the following circumstances:
* a [[Misapprehension of Evidence|misapprehension of "significant evidence"]]<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Morrissey|6jtj|1995 CanLII 3498 (ONCA)| (1995), 97 CCC (3d) 193, }}{{perONCA|Doherty JA}}</ref>
* [[Sufficiency of Reasons]]
* improper questioning during [[Cross-Examinations|cross-examination]]<ref>
{{CanLIIR|MFT|ftl4s|2012 BCCA 428 (CanLII)}}{{perBCCA|Neilson JA}}{{atsL|ftl4s|38| to 46}} - improper cross-examination found but no prejudice arose so appeal failed </ref>
* invalid [[Guilty Plea|guilty plea]]<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Wiebe|fvfd0|2012 BCCA 519 (CanLII)}}{{perBCCA|Ryan JA}}{{atL|fvfd0|22}}</ref>
* [[Ineffective Counsel|Ineffective or Incompetent Counsel]]

{{reflist|2}}

==Trial Irregularities==
Trial irregularities may amount to an appealable miscarriage of justice where "the cumulative impact of the irregularities outlined above so disrupted the balance between the rights of the accused and those of the prosecution such that 'a well-informed, reasonable person considering the whole of the circumstances would have perceived the trial as being unfair or as appearing to be so'"<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Spier|fttk8|2012 ONCA 798 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|Rouleau JA}}{{atsL|fttk8|32|}} and {{atsL-np|fttk8|85|}}<br>
</ref>  
The considerations will vary on a case-by-case basis.<ref>
{{ibid1|Spier}}{{atL|fttk8|32}} ("The gravity of the irregularities and the impact of these on trial fairness and the appearance of fairness are to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.)"<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

===Missing Transcript===
Not all instances where portions of the trial transcript will warrant a new trial.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Hayes|1ft8g|1989 CanLII 108 (SCC)|[1989] 1 SCR 44}}{{perSCC|L'Heureux-Dube J}}<br>
</ref>
Generally, it must be established that there was "a serious possibility that there was an error in the missing portion of the transcript, or that the omission deprived the appellant of a ground of appeal" before a new trial will be ordered.<ref>
{{ibid1|Hayes}}<br>
see also
{{CanLIIRP|SR|1d9xz|1993 CanLII 930 (BCCA)|26 B.C.A.C. 149}}{{perBCCA|Hollinrake JA}}{{atL|1d9xz|27}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Noble|1wns1|1996 CanLII 8344 (BCCA)|106 CCC (3d) 161}}{{perBCCA|McEachern JA}} (2:1){{atL|1wns1|15}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Dobis|1dqkj|2002 CanLII 32815 (ONCA)|163 CCC (3d) 259}}{{perONCA|MacPherson JA}}{{atL|1wns1|19}}(Ont. C.A.)<br>
{{CnaLIIRP|Doucette (C.)|1vbd8|1993 CanLII 5390 (NB CA)|, 135 N.B.R. (2d) 151}}{{perNBCA|Hoyt JA}}{{atL|1wns1|5}}(C.A.)<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Le (T.D.)|frj5d|2011 MBCA 83 (CanLII)|, }}{{perMBCA|Scott CJ}}{{atsL|frj5d|265| to 324}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Sufficiency of Reasons==
{{seealso|Sufficiency of Reasons}}
Issues of sufficiency of reasons can arise from an appeal under 686(1)(a) based on [[Appeal of an Error of Law|error of law]], miscarriage of justice, or [[Unreasonable Verdict|unreasonable verdict]].

{{reflist|2}}