COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

DATE: 20010703 DOCKET: C33642

RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) v. UREY MESHKO (Appellant)

BEFORE: DOHERTY, AUSTIN and MACPHERSON JJ.A.

COUNSEL: Urey Meshko in person

Leslie Paine for the respondent

HEARD: June 26, 2001

On appeal from the conviction and sentence imposed by Justice Frank K. Roberts dated July 8, 1999.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant chose to represent himself on the appeal. He chose not to avail himself of the help of duty counsel except to a limited degree. He filed several letters with the court and made oral submissions for 1 1/2 hours. Part way through his oral argument, the appellant asked for an opportunity to file further written argument instead of completing his oral argument. We decided that it was not practical to accede to this request. The appellant then requested an adjournment. We refused that request. He completed his submissions. We also considered the helpful written submissions provided by the amicus curiae and the Crown.

[2] We see no merit in the grounds of the appeal advanced by the appellant. Most of those grounds consisted of a re-argument of relatively minor evidentiary issues raised by the appellant at his trial. His submissions ignored the overwhelming direct evidence provided by three eyewitnesses who witnessed the appellant’s attack on his wife and subdued him during the course of that attack.

[3] The trial judge declined to direct a trial of an issue as to the appellant’s fitness to stand trial. Having listened to the appellant, we agree with that assessment. On the authority of R. v. Taylor (1992), 1992 7412 (ON CA), 77 C.C.C. (3d) 551 (Ont. C.A.), we see no reason to doubt the appellant’s fitness to stand trial.

[4] The evidence of the threats made to the deceased and testified to by the daughters was not admissible as “direct evidence” as indicated by the trial judge. There was, however, evidence that the appellant impliedly adopted the deceased’s allegation of the threat when confronted with it by one of his daughters. Apart from the evidence of that one threat, there was other cogent evidence of the appellant’s animosity towards the deceased. The evidence of the threat which the daughters said their mother told them about was, in our view, only a small part of the evidence going to the appellant’s state of mind, including the question whether the murder was planned and deliberate.

[5] The appeal must be dismissed.

“Doherty J.A.”

“Austin J.A.”

“J.C. MacPherson J.A.”