COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Hourigan J.A. (Motion Judge)
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
and
V. George Novotny
Moving Party/Appellant
V. George Novotny, self-represented
Zachary D’Onofrio, for the respondent
Heard: September 16, 2020
REASONS FOR DECISION
1The applicant was convicted of dredging and filing shore lands along the shoreline of his property on Wellers Bay in Prince Edward County without the authority of a work permit, contrary to s. 2(1) of O. Reg. 239/13 (the “Regulation”) made under the Public Lands Act, R.S.O 1990, c. P. 43. He was fined $3,000 for each conviction, placed on probation, and made subject to a rehabilitation order. Pursuant to s.116 of the Provincial Offences Act, (“POA”) R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, the applicant unsuccessfully appealed the convictions and sentence to a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice.
2The applicant now seeks leave to appeal both his convictions and sentence to this court. To obtain leave to appeal under s. 131 of the POA, the applicant must establish:
(1) special grounds;
(2) on a question of law alone; and
(3) that, in the particular circumstances of the case, it is essential in the public interest or for the due administration of justice that leave be granted.
See: R. v. Hicks, 2014 ONCA 756, at para. 21.
3The threshold for granting leave under s. 131 is very high and leave should be granted sparingly: Hicks at para. 21. The following points, among others, should be borne in mind in considering such a motion:
Provincial offences appeal judgments are intended to be final, and leave should be granted only in exceptional cases: Ontario (Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change) v. Sunrise Propane Energy Group Inc., 2018 ONCA 461, 17 C.E.L.R. (4th) 174, at para. 13.
The focus is not on whether the subject matter of the case is of interest or importance to the public, but rather on the significance of the legal issues raised in the proposed appeal: Sunrise Propane Energy Group Inc., at para. 16.
For leave to be granted, the error must involve a question of law alone, not a question of fact or of mixed fact and law: Ontario (Labour) v. Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc., 2011 ONCA 13, 328 D.L.R. (4th) 343, at para. 35.
Questions that raise issues requiring resolution in the public interest or for the due administration of justice can properly be viewed as raising questions of law: R. v. Ul-Rashid, 2013 ONCA 782, at para. 21.
4The applicant has failed to meet the test for leave to appeal under s. 131 of the POA. I reach that conclusion for two reasons.
5First, the proposed grounds of appeal have no merit and have no prospect of success. The applicant asserts that he was induced into undertaking the work on his property by an error made by officials of the Quinte Conservation Authority. However, the applicable law regarding officially induced mistake was properly stated by the trial justice of the peace and accurately applied to the facts of this case. The applicant’s submission about the meaning of the critical term “shore lands” in the Regulation is inconsistent with the definition as contained in the Regulation. The applicant’s attacks on the trial justice of the peace’s credibility finding are not compelling and do not qualify as an error of law. His allegations that he was the victim of fabricated evidence and that the trial justice of the peace was biased are unsupported by cogent evidence. I also see no basis for this court to interfere with the perfectly reasonable and lawful sentence imposed. In short, there is no merit in these, and the other grounds of appeal raised by the applicant.
6Second, even if there was some merit to the numerous potential grounds of appeal identified by the applicant, none of them would meet the threshold that it is essential in the public interest or for the due administration of justice that leave be granted. These are fact driven arguments and alleged legal errors that have no significance beyond the interests of the parties.
7The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
“C.W. Hourigan J.A.”