Court of Appeal for Ontario
Date: 2026-02-18 Docket: C70665
Trotter, Dawe and Wilson JJ.A.
Between
His Majesty the King — Respondent
and
Christopher-Maik Bernier — Appellant
Christopher-Maik Bernier, acting in person
Allyson Ratsoy, for the respondent
Heard: January 27, 2026
On appeal from the order of Justice Anne E. London-Weinstein of the Superior Court of Justice, dated March 21, 2022, with reasons reported at 2022 ONSC 1765, dismissing an application for certiorari from the order of Regional Senior Justice W. Vincent Clifford of the Ontario Court of Justice, dated October 1, 2021.
Reasons for Decision
1The appellant was charged with offences under the Taxation Act, 2007, S.O. 2007, c. 11, Sched. A.
2In the course of those proceedings, the appellant brought a certiorari application, which was dismissed on March 21, 2022. The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal from that decision on May 25, 2022. The appeal took over three and a half years to be listed for hearing.
3However, on September 28, 2022, the appellant entered pleas of guilty to the offences. He was sentenced on October 6, 2022.
4The Crown takes the position that, by virtue of his guilty plea, the appellant has waived his right to challenge any interlocutory decisions and, as such, he is no longer entitled to appeal the certiorari ruling: see R. v. Faulkner, 2018 ONCA 174, 407 C.R.R. (2d) 59, at para. 98; R. v. Lopez-Restrepo, 2018 ONCA 887, 369 C.C.C. (3d) 56, at paras. 18-24.
5At the hearing of the appeal, the panel was advised that the appellant has sought to set aside his convictions under the Taxation Act. An appeal from those convictions lies to the Superior Court of Justice. At the end of the hearing, we directed both parties to advise the panel of the status of the proceedings in the Superior Court of Justice. We have since been advised that the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal, signed on January 5, 2026, in the Superior Court of Justice in Ottawa. The appeal is to be spoken-to on March 6, 2026.
6The appeal before this court is presently moot. Any decision we might make with respect to the certiorari decision would have no impact on the appellant's guilty pleas that resulted in his convictions and sentence. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal without adjudicating on the merits. If the appellant is successful with his late-breaking appeal in the Superior Court of Justice, it will be open to him to bring an application to re-open this appeal.
7The appeal is dismissed.
8The appellant also applies for an order for a publication ban on his full name at, and following, the hearing of this appeal. He wishes to be identified only by his initials.
9Applying the principles in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25, [2021] 2 S.C.R. 75, the application is dismissed. The appellant has not established that court openness poses a serious risk to an important public interest. We take into account that the appellant was convicted and sentenced for provincial offences. The case proceeded in the courts below without a request by the appellant to initialize his name. We also note that the proceedings in the courts below, in which the appellant's full name is referenced, are already in the public domain. The certiorari judgment that the appellant seeks to appeal and other rulings related to this case are available online, without initialization.
10The application is dismissed.
"Gary Trotter J.A."
"J. Dawe J.A."
"D.A. Wilson J.A."