View source for Right of Appeal of a Summary Conviction Appeal Decision

[[fr:Droit_d%27appel_des_verdicts_ou_des_peines_pour_infractions_sommaires]]
{{Currency2|January|2018}}
{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderAppeals}}
==General Principles==
{{seealso|Right of Appeal of Verdicts or Sentences for Summary Offences}}
The Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to hear summary conviction appeals without leave.

===Leave for Appeal Under s. 676 by Defence===
{{quotation2|
675 <br>
{{removed|(1)}}
; Summary conviction appeals
(1.1) A person may appeal, pursuant to subsection (1) {{AnnSec6|675(1)}}, with leave of the court of appeal or a judge of that court, to that court in respect of a summary conviction or a sentence passed with respect to a summary conviction as if the summary conviction had been a conviction in proceedings by indictment if
:(a) there has not been an appeal with respect to the summary conviction;
:(b) the summary conviction offence was tried with an indictable offence; and
:(c) there is an appeal in respect of the indictable offence.
{{removed|(2), (2.1), (2.2), (2.3), (3) and (4)}}
R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. C-46}}, s. 675;
{{LegHistory90s|1991, c. 43}}, s. 9;
{{LegHistory90s|1995, c. 42}}, s. 73; 
{{LegHistory90s|1997, c. 18}}, s. 92; 
{{LegHistory90s|1999, c. 31}}, s. 68;
{{LegHistory00s|2002, c. 13}}, s. 64;
{{LegHistory10s|2011, c. 5}}, s. 2.
{{Annotation}}
|{{CCCSec2|675}}
|{{NoteUp|675|1.1}}
}}

{{reflist|2}}

===Leave for Appeal Under s. 675 by Crown===
{{quotation2|
676<Br>
{{Removed|(1)}}
; Summary conviction appeals
(1.1) The Attorney General or counsel instructed by the Attorney General may appeal, pursuant to subsection (1) {{AnnSec6|676(1)}}, with leave of the court of appeal or a judge of that court, to that court in respect of a verdict of acquittal in a summary offence proceeding or a sentence passed with respect to a summary conviction as if the summary offence proceeding was a proceeding by indictment if
:(a) there has not been an appeal with respect to the summary conviction;
:(b) the summary conviction offence was tried with an indictable offence; and
:(c) there is an appeal in respect of the indictable offence.
{{Removed|(2), (3), (4), (5) and (6)}}
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 676;
R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 139, c. 1 (4th Supp.), s. 18(F);
{{LegHistory90s|1991, c. 43}}, s. 9; 
{{LegHistory90s|1995, c. 22}}, s. 10, c. 42, s. 74; 
{{LegHistory90s|1997, c. 18}}, s. 93;
{{LegHistory00s|2002, c. 13}}, s. 65;
{{LegHistory00s|2008, c. 18}}, s. 28;
{{LegHistory10s|2011, c. 5}}, s. 3.
|{{CCCSec2|676}}
|{{NoteUp|676|1.1}}
}}

{{reflist|2}}

===Leave for Appeal Under s. 839 by Crown or Defence===
The applicant, either Crown or Defence, must apply for leave before appealing to the Court of Appeal under s. 839:
{{quotation2|
; Appeals to Court of Appeal
; Appeal on question of law
839 (1) Subject to subsection (1.1){{AnnSec6|839(1.1)}}, an appeal to the court of appeal as defined in section 673 {{AnnSec6|673}} may, with leave of that court or a judge thereof, be taken on any ground that involves a question of law alone, against
:(a) a decision of a court in respect of an appeal under section 822 {{AnnSec8|822}}; or
:(b) a decision of an appeal court under section 834 {{AnnSec8|834}}, except where that court is the court of appeal.

{{Removed|(1.1)}}
; Sections applicable
(2) Sections 673 to 689 {{AnnSec6|673 to 689}} apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to an appeal under this section.
<br>
; Costs
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2) {{AnnSec8|839(2)}}, the court of appeal may make any order with respect to costs that it considers proper in relation to an appeal under this section.
<br>
; Enforcement of decision
(4) The decision of the court of appeal may be enforced in the same manner as if it had been made by the summary conviction court before which the proceedings were originally heard and determined.
<br>
; Right of Attorney General of Canada to appeal
(5) The Attorney General of Canada has the same rights of appeal in proceedings instituted at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that Government as the Attorney General of a province has under this Part.
<Br>
R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. C-46}}, s. 839;
 R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.)}}, s. 183; 
{{LegHistory90s|1999, c. 3}}, s. 57.
{{Annotation}}
|{{CCCSec2|839}}
|{{NoteUp|839|1|2|3|4|5}}
}}

{{reflist|2}}

==Test for Appeal==
An appellant must have leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal decision. The appellant must establish the requirements of s. 839 of the Criminal Code:<ref> 
{{CanLIIRP|Meikle|2bcp3|2010 BCCA 337 (CanLII)|DTC 5140}}{{perBCCA|Saunders JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Brunner|1f0mr|1996 CanLII 3308 (BCCA)|[1996] BCJ No 628  (CA)}}{{perBCCA|Hinds JA}}{{atL|1f0mr|3}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Bryan|1gnbm|2004 BCCA 140 (CanLII)|236 DLR (4th) 340}}{{perBCCA|Smith JA}}{{atL|1gnbm|14}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Parmar|1k371|2005 BCCA 187 (CanLII)|195 CCC (3d) 112}}{{perBCCA|Thackray JA}}{{atsL|1k371|3| to 10}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Schalla (K.T.)|1sr15|2007 MBCA 104 (CanLII)|220 Man.R. (2d) 69}}{{perMBCA|Freedman JA}}{{atL|1sr15|1}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Langlois (D.J.)|1x3vs|2008 MBCA 72 (CanLII)|228 Man.R. (2d) 256}}{{perMBCA|Chartier JA}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Jacob|fqncb|2012 MBCA 19 (CanLII)|280 Man R (2d) 6}}{{perMBCA|Beard JA}} <br>
{{CanLIIRP|RWM|fn0kt|2011 MBCA 74 (CanLII)|270 Man R (2d) 29}}{{perMBCA|Freedman JA}}{{atsL|fn0kt|23| to 26}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Dickson|fplxq|2012 MBCA 2 (CanLII)|275 Man R (2d) 38}}{{perMBCA|Scott CJ}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Rowe|fxd6d|2013 ONCA 311 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|fxd6d|4}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Newfoundland Recycling Ltd.|23c2w|2009 NLCA 28 (CanLII)|875 APR 153}}{{perNLCA|Rowe JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Panko|2cvzl|2010 ONCA 660 (CanLII)|276 OAC 49}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|2cvzl|6}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Tibu|gp8f5|2016 ABCA 97 (CanLII)|AJ No 329}}{{perABCA|Schutz JA}}{{atsL|gp8f5|6| to 7}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Bennett|1gs7b|2004 ABCA 116 (CanLII)|354 AR 6}}{{perABCA|O’Leary JA}}{{atsL|1gs7b|9| to 10}}<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Edmonton|g0n8l|2013 ABCA 318 (CanLII)|561 AR 25}}{{perABCA|Cote JA}}{{atL|g0n8l|31}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Dufault|g8s0l|2014 ABCA 271 (CanLII)|68 MVR (6th) 219}}{{perABCA|Veldhuis J}}{{atL|g8s0l|13}}<Br>
</ref>
#the issue sought to be raised is a question of law alone;
#the issue is important/the matter raises an arguable case of substance; and
# is the question of sufficient importance to merit the attention of the full court.

Appeals of SCAC decisions are not meant as a second review of the provincial court level. They can only be reviews of errors of law from the SCAC judge.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|RR|1z15s|2008 ONCA 497 (CanLII)|90 OR (3d) 641}}{{perONCA-H|Doherty JA}}{{atL|1z15s|24}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Chatur|fr21z|2012 BCCA 163 (CanLII)|320 BCAC 85}}{{perBCCA|Smith JA}}{{atL|fr21z|17}}<br>
</ref>

Leave under s. 839(1)(a) should be granted sparingly and "discouraged in absence of some compelling reason". The main factors to consider are whether there "are the significance of the legal issues raised to the general administration of criminal justice" and "the merits of the proposed grounds of appeal"<ref>
{{supra1|RR}}{{atsL|1z15s|30|}} and {{atsL-np|atL|1z15s|37|}}<br>
{{supra1|Tibu}} at para 9<br>
{{supra1|Dufault}}{{AtL|g8s0l|14}} ("Applications for leave pursuant to s 839 of the Criminal Code should be granted sparingly and with good reason. ... Here the granting of leave would bring about a second-level appeal, which is to be discouraged in the absence of some compelling reason to conclude otherwise.")<bR>
</ref>

Where the grounds are not strong, leave may still be granted if the "significance to the administration of justice beyond the facts of the case."<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Mayrhofer-Lima|hp579|2017 ONCA 949 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|hp579|8}}<br>
</ref>

Where the general significance to the administration of justice is not strong, leave may still be granted where there is "clear error."<ref>
{{supra1|RR}}{{atL|1z15s|24}}<br>
{{supra1|Mayrhofer-Lima}}{{atL|hp579|8}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Standard of Review==
Leave should only be granted sparingly and only in exceptional cases.<ref>
{{CanLII|Pottie|fxpqk|2013 NSCA 68 (CanLII)}}{{perNSCA|Farrar JA}}{{atL|fxpqk|21}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|RR|1z15s|2008 ONCA 497 (CanLII)|90 OR (3d) 641}}{{perONCA-H|Doherty JA}}{{atsL|1z15s|25|}}, {{atsL-np|1z15s|37|}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Chatur|fr21z|2012 BCCA 163 (CanLII)|320 BCAC 85}}{{perBCCA|Smith JA}}{{atL|fr21z|18}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Paterson|237s7|2009 ONCA 331 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|237s7|1}}<br>
</ref>

The appellant should demonstrate the exceptional circumstances that would justify a further review.<ref>
{{supra1|Pottie}}{{atL|fxpqk|21}}<br>
{{supra1|RR}}{{atL|1z15s|27}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Dickson|fplxq|2012 MBCA 2 (CanLII)|275 Man R (2d) 38}}{{perMBCA|Scott CJ}}{{atL|fplxq|14}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|RWM|fn0kt|2011 MBCA 74 (CanLII)|270 Man R (2d) 29}}{{perMBCA|Freedman JA}}{{atL|fn0kt|32}}<br>
</ref>

The fitness of sentence may be a factor to consider.<ref>
{{supra1|Chatur}}{{atL|fr21z|19}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Im|229l4|2009 ONCA 101 (CanLII)|242 CCC (3d) 77}}{{perONCA|Epstein JA}}{{atL|229l4|22}}<br>
</ref>

On summary conviction appeal, the reviewing judge must decide whether the decision of the trial judge could have been reasonably reached. The appeal should only be allowed if:<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Kumar|gw54s|2016 ONSC 7928 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Bielby J}}{{atL|gw54s|16}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Mason|fvwvs|2013 ONSC 478 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Fragomeni J}}{{atL|fvwvs|49}}<Br>
</ref>
# cannot be supported by the evidence; or
# is clearly wrong in law; or
# is clearly unreasonable; or
# there has been a miscarriage of justice.

{{Reflist|2}}

==Importance of Issue==
The case must be of sufficient importance to merit the attention of the court. There is a compelling reason for a second level of court to review. Reasons include raising matters that are significant to the administration of justice or development of law.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Denys (C.D.)|232nk|2009 MBCA 39 (CanLII)|(2009) 240 Man.R. (2d) 13}}{{perMBCA|Freedman JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Chaluk|5slv|1998 ABCA 253 (CanLII)|197 WAC 366}}{{perABCA|Russell JA}}{{atL|5slv|7}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Johnson|g0p5w|2013 ABCA 322 (CanLII)}}{{perABCA|Rowbotham JA}}{{atL|g0p5w|11}}<br>
</ref>

In considering the question of importance, the main consideration is "interests of justice".
<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Meikle|2bcp3|2010 BCCA 337 (CanLII)|DTC 5140}}{{perBCCA|Saunders JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Andrews|1v1dt|2007 BCCA 597 (CanLII)|76 WCB (2d) 223}}{{perBCCA|Donald JA}}<br>
</ref>

Factors include:
* the merits of the appeal sought.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Bennett|1gs7b|2004 ABCA 116 (CanLII)|354 AR 6}}{{perABCA|O’Leary JA}}<br>
</ref>
* the need to settle the law on the issue.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Edmonton|g0n8l|2013 ABCA 318 (CanLII)|561 AR 25}}{{perABCA|Côté JA}}{{atL|g0n8l|31}}<br>
</ref>
* whether an injustice would result from denying leave<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Toor|5rkh|2001 ABCA 88 (CanLII)|155 CCC (3d) 345}}{{perABCA|Paperny JA}}{{atL|5rkh|8}}<br>
</ref>

Leave should be denied, even if there is an error, where there is no potential to significantly impact the law.<ref>
{{ibid1|Toor}}{{atL|5rkh|8}}</ref> 
However, leave should be warranted for areas of law that are not settled.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|A(DC)|5s4x|1999 ABCA 244 (CanLII)|AJ No 937}}{{perABCA|Picard JA}}</ref>

The appeal should not be granted for appeals concerning well-settled areas of law.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Zaky|2cv8c|2010 ABCA 95 (CanLII)}}{{perABCA|Paperny JA}}{{atL|2cv8c|10}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Im|229l4|2009 ONCA 101 (CanLII)|242 CCC (3d) 77}}{{perONCA|Epstein JA}}{{atL|229l4|17}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRx|Hengeveld|27q2c|2010 ONCA 60 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|27q2c|5}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|RR|1z15s|2008 ONCA 497 (CanLII)|234 CCC (3d) 463}}{{perONCA-H|Doherty JA}}{{atL|1z15s|31}}<br>
</ref>

Appeal should not be granted where the issue is significant to the administration of justice, not merely "arguable" on the merits. There should be a "clear" error.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|M(RW)|fn0kt|2011 MBCA 74 (CanLII)|270 Man R (2d) 29}}{{perMBCA|Freedman JA}}{{atL|fn0kt|37}}<br>
{{supra1|RR}}{{atL|1z15s|32}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}