COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) v. EROL DAVID HAYE (Applicant/Appellant)
BEFORE: CATZMAN, ABELLA and MacPHERSON JJ.A.
COUNSEL: Leslie Pringle for the appellant
Renee Pomerance for the respondent
HEARD: February 15, 2000
On appeal from the conviction imposed by Meehan J. dated February
11, 1996.
E N D O R S E M E N T
1Although we had the benefit of thoughtful and extensive
submissions from both counsel, we are of the view that the
disposition of this appeal turns on a very narrow issue, namely,
did the Court of Appeal in its 1996 judgment deal with the
conviction for unlawful confinement? The appellant conceded that
if it did, this panel has no jurisdiction to grant a remedy.
2The unanimous judgment of the court was by Goodman J.A. In
his two concluding paragraphs, he stated:
In so far as the conviction entered on count
two with respect to the charge of confining
the complainant without lawful authority
contrary to the provisions of s.279(2) of the
Code is concerned, the defence of accident
did not apply and the misdirection with
respect to this defence is irrelevant to the
conviction registered by the jury in this
count. Accordingly, I would dismiss the
appeal against this conviction.
In view of the disposition of the appeal
which I would make with respect to the
conviction on the other two counts, I would
remove the stay of the conviction on the
unlawful confinement charge entered by the
trial judge on the Kienapple principle and
remit the matter of sentencing on this charge
to the trial judge.
3In our view, it is clear from these paragraphs that the
court directed its mind to the disposition of the unlawful
confinement offence and purported to enter a conviction.
4In these circumstances, we have no jurisdiction to entertain
an appeal to review a matter already dealt with by another panel
of this court. Any alleged error in that panel’s judgment could
be remedied only by seeking leave from the Supreme Court of
Canada.
5The appeal is therefore dismissed.