R. v. Muir, 2020 ONCA 107

Court File and Parties

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DATE: 20200211 DOCKET: C66960

Feldman, MacPherson and Gillese JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen Respondent

and

Peter Ronald Muir Appellant

Counsel: Peter Ronald Muir, in person Matthew Gourlay, duty counsel Michael Fawcett, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: February 10, 2020

On appeal from the conviction entered on December 21, 2018 and the sentence imposed on March 29, 2019 by Justice Leitch of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting with a jury.

Reasons for Decision

[1]

Introduction

The appellant appeals his convictions of two counts of uttering a threat to a police officer and one count of possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose. He also appeals his sentence of 15 months concurrent on each count, although in court today he advised that his sentence appeal only relates to the term of his probation that banishes him from the City of London for two years.

[2]

Appeal Against Conviction

The appeal against the convictions is based on the submission that the trial judge erred by finding that there was no air of reality to the defense of self-defence and that she applied a “totally objective” test rather than a modified objective test.

3We would not give effect to this submission. While the trial judge did use the phrase “totally objective” at one point in her reasons, it is clear from reading her reasons as a whole that she took into account the appellant’s history with the London police and his psychological fear that they intended to harm him. Taking those factors into account, she was satisfied that there was no air of reality to the defense under s. 34 (3) that a reasonable person in the circumstances of Mr. Muir would believe that the police were acting unlawfully, or under s. 34 (1) that his response of threating police with a crossbow could be viewed as reasonable.

4Accordingly, the appeal against conviction is dismissed.

[5]

Appeal Against Sentence

With respect to sentence, there was a joint submission including the banishment term. We see no error in the trial judge accepting that term in the circumstance of this case. As a result the appeal against sentence is also dismissed.