COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

DATE: 20000308

DOCKET: C26258

RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) v. EROL DAVID
HAYE (Applicant/Appellant)

BEFORE: CATZMAN, ABELLA and MacPHERSON JJ.A.

COUNSEL: Leslie Pringle
for the appellant

Renee Pomerance
for the respondent

HEARD: February 15, 2000

On appeal from the conviction imposed by Meehan J. dated February

11, 1996.

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] Although we had the benefit of thoughtful and extensive

submissions from both counsel, we are of the view that the

disposition of this appeal turns on a very narrow issue, namely,

did the Court of Appeal in its 1996 judgment deal with the

conviction for unlawful confinement? The appellant conceded that

if it did, this panel has no jurisdiction to grant a remedy.

[2] The unanimous judgment of the court was by Goodman J.A. In

his two concluding paragraphs, he stated:

In so far as the conviction entered on count

two with respect to the charge of confining

the complainant without lawful authority

contrary to the provisions of s.279(2) of the

Code is concerned, the defence of accident

did not apply and the misdirection with

respect to this defence is irrelevant to the

conviction registered by the jury in this

count. Accordingly, I would dismiss the

appeal against this conviction.

In view of the disposition of the appeal

which I would make with respect to the

conviction on the other two counts, I would

remove the stay of the conviction on the

unlawful confinement charge entered by the

trial judge on the Kienapple principle and

remit the matter of sentencing on this charge

to the trial judge.

[3] In our view, it is clear from these paragraphs that the

court directed its mind to the disposition of the unlawful

confinement offence and purported to enter a conviction.

[4] In these circumstances, we have no jurisdiction to entertain

an appeal to review a matter already dealt with by another panel

of this court. Any alleged error in that panel’s judgment could

be remedied only by seeking leave from the Supreme Court of

Canada.

[5] The appeal is therefore dismissed.