Court File and Parties
Court of Appeal for Ontario Date: 2021-10-08 Docket: C69343
Fairburn A.C.J.O., Doherty and Watt JJ.A.
Between: Her Majesty the Queen Respondent
And: Jamie Jefferies Appellant
Counsel: Frank Addario, Sherif Foda, and Rick Frank, for the appellant Matthew Asma, for the respondent Amy Ohler and Eric Neubauer, for the intervener Criminal Lawyers’ Association
Heard and released orally: October 6, 2021
On appeal from the order denying certiorari and prohibition entered by Justice C. Stephen Glithero of the Superior Court of Justice on March 16, 2021, with reasons reported at 2021 ONSC 1983.
Reasons for Decision
[1]
Introduction
This is an appeal from the dismissal of an application for two forms of extraordinary relief. The application judge described the requests for relief as follows:
An order in the nature of prohibition to prohibit any judge of the Ontario Court of Justice from proceeding to hold the trial of the accused upon the counts of aggravated assault, assault causing bodily harm, common assault, two counts of mischief and three counts of breach release order, contained in Information No. 19005445, sworn June 20, 2019, presently outstanding in that court.
[and]
An order to quash the ruling of the Honourable Justice A.T. McKay to conduct the trial of R. v. Jamie Jefferies remotely via video conference released on February 18, 2021.
2The application was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
[3]
Mootness
Since the dismissal of the application for extraordinary relief, upon which this appeal is predicated, the appellant’s request for a full in-person trial has been accommodated. The appellant acknowledges today that his trial will continue in person on October 18, 2021, and it is his intention to proceed with that trial, regardless of any order this court may make, including if this court decides to hear the appeal today. In our view, in light of that concession, the appeal is moot.
[4]
Exercise of Discretion
Despite the fact that this court may find the appeal moot, the appellant still urges the court to hear the appeal because of what is said to be the strong public interest engaged. We decline to do so because:
The record in this case is wanting in relation to the issues the appellant asks to be decided.
The issues to be decided are not evasive of review in the context of the normal appellate process.
There is no evidence before us that would suggest a systemic problem that requires immediate resolution in the public interest. For example, there does not appear to be any serious, ongoing controversy over the limits of judicial authority in utilizing statutory provisions to excuse the attendance of justice system participants from criminal trials.
The appeal to this court is an appeal from a decision arising from an application for extraordinary relief and, as such, necessarily limits the scope of the appeal to this court. In our view, the issues raised on appeal are much better addressed in the context of a full appeal on the record.
5The appeal is dismissed as moot.
“Fairburn A.C.J.O.”
“Doherty J.A.”
“David Watt J.A.”