COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Before: Doherty, Pepall and Tulloch JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
and
Richard Goebel
Appellant
Counsel:
Ken J. Berger, for the appellant
Amy Alyea, for the respondent
Heard: June 3, 2014
On appeal from the decision of Justice Ian Nordheimer of the Superior Court of Justice, dated October 2, 2012.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
1The parties agree that the appeal is moot. The charge against the appellant was withdrawn a year ago and he is no longer facing any jeopardy. All of the relief he seeks relates to the prosecution which is no longer extant.
2This is not a case in which we should hear the appeal despite its mootness.
3First, one of the issues raised here, the admissibility of the evidence of the experts evidence on the application, is unique to this case. Second, the other issues raised, the constitutionality of s. 717, and the constitutionality of the manner in which the Attorney General exercised his discretion under s. 717, raise issues which, in our view, can be addressed in a “live” case where the charges remain before the courts and a live controversy exists between the parties. These are not the kind of issues that are unamenable to judicial review in the normal course.
4The motion to quash is allowed and the appeal is quashed.