DATE: 20030204
DOCKET: M29316
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) –and– ANH THU CHIEM (Applicant/Moving Party)
BEFORE: CRONK J.A. (in chambers)
COUNSEL: Anh Thu Chiem, the applicant in person Geoffrey T. Uyeno, for the respondent
HEARD: January 31, 2003
RELEASED ORALLY: January 31, 2003
ENDORSEMENT
1The applicant was convicted on October 1, 2001 of three counts of owning and operating a body rub parlour without a license, contrary to the applicable City of Toronto licensing by-law. She received a sentence consisting of a total fine of $2,000, together with two years probation. The applicant had also been convicted previously, in December 1999, of two counts of operating a body rub parlour without a license at a different location in Toronto.
2The applicant appealed her sentence. On November 14, 2002, Justice I.A. MacDonnell of the Ontario Court of Justice allowed her sentence appeal in part, by setting aside the term of probation. He otherwise dismissed her appeal, thereby upholding the fine of $2,000.
3The applicant seeks leave to appeal to this court against sentence on the grounds that: 1) she was forced to proceed to trial without legal counsel; 2) she cannot afford the total fine imposed, plus the surcharge on the fine and the costs apparently awarded against her on one of her court attendances, because she is a single mother supporting three children; 3) she was not given an opportunity at trial or on her summary conviction appeal to “talk”; and 4) her sentence has prevented her from obtaining a license to operate her business and she has lost her investment in her body rub parlour business.
4The applicant also argued before me today that the charges against her resulted from an argument between the municipal by-law inspectors and a person working at her place of business on June 6, 2000. While that alleged argument may have taken place, I do not agree that it was the cause of the charges against the applicant. The applicant was charged because she was operating a business without a license, contrary to the City of Toronto by-law. If she did not know that on June 6, 2000, she did know it by June 17, 2000, when the inspectors charged her a second time. The inspectors visited her premises again on June 28, 2000, and charged the applicant for a third time. There is no evidence before this court that the business was closed between June 17, 2000 and June 28, 2000.
5Two of the other grounds of appeal raised by the applicant are not supported by the record. The transcript from the applicant’s trial indicates that she was represented at trial by defence counsel. Moreover, she was provided with an opportunity to address the trial judge prior to sentencing and after he heard extensive submissions from her counsel. She did address the court. On her summary conviction appeal, the applicant argued her appeal in person.
6As to the remaining grounds of appeal raised by the applicant, in my view they do not satisfy either of the requisite elements of the statutory test for leave to appeal to this court. It is not essential in the public interest, nor is it essential for the due administration of justice, that leave to appeal be granted.
7Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
“E.A. Cronk J.A.”