Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: R. v. Jones, 2007 ONCA 736 Date: 2007-10-25 Docket: C47086

Before: Doherty, Blair JJ.A. and Then R.S.J. (ad hoc)

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen Respondent

and

Oswin Jones Appellant

Counsel: David M. Landesman for the appellant Alison Wheeler for the respondent

Heard and orally released: October 18, 2007

On appeal from the decision given by Regional Senior Justice Bruce Durno of the Superior Court of Justice dated April 11, 2007.

Endorsement

[1] This is an appeal from the order of Durno R.S.J. dismissing an application for certiorari. He held that the trial court adjourned the matter to two dates, a pre-trial date and a confirmation date. He further held that the failure to speak to the matter on the first date did not result in a loss of jurisdiction over the offence.

[2] We agree with Durno R.S.J.’s interpretation of the order made by the trial court. He said:

For the following reasons, I am persuaded the applicant was remanded to appear on at least two dates, and not just May 31, 2006. Accordingly, jurisdiction over the accused was not lost on May 31, 2006.

[3] The jurisdictional issue is whether s. 803 of the Criminal Code permits an adjournment to two fixed dates.

[4] The appellant argued that because s. 803 uses the singular and refers to an adjournment to “a time and place to be appointed” that the section contemplates only one adjournment at a time. The use of the singular is irrelevant and of no assistance in interpreting the scope of s. 803: see s. 33 of the Interpretation Act.

[5] The appellant next argues that because the second adjournment date can always be changed on the first appearance, the second date can be no more than a tentative date. We disagree. All dates are tentative in the sense that they are subject to change by a subsequent order made prior to that date.

[6] We are satisfied that s. 803 should be interpreted, to the extent that the words permit, so as to maximize the court’s ability to control its docket and effectively and efficiently use its limited resources while not prejudicing the appellant in his defence. Justice Durno was of the same view:

Third, while in the past it was the “norm” to remand an accused to one date, with the advent of “confirmation dates” in the Ontario Court of Justice and “trial readiness dates” in the Superior Court of Justice, there are now frequent appearances where an accused is given two or more dates on which they are required to appear in court. Practically, there is much to commend the practice of permitting accused to be remanded to more than one date. Of greater importance, there is no prejudice or injustice to the accused, particularly here, where the accused consented to the dates being set.

[7] The appellant has referred us to several cases. None deal with this specific situation. Most deal with cases where a trial was not adjourned to a specific date, but rather to some unfixed point in the future: see R. v. Stedelbauer Chevrolet Oldsmobile Ltd. (1974), 1974 ALTASCAD 67, 19 C.C.C. (2d) 359 (Alta. C.A.). In any event, many of the older cases take what we regard as an overly technical approach to the interpretation of the procedural provisions of the Criminal Code. On a purposive approach, the words of s. 803 permit remands to more than one date.

[8] We agree with Durno R.S.J. The matter was adjourned to two dates. The failure to place the matter on the docket on the first date did not result in a loss of jurisdiction over the offence. The matter was properly on the docket on the second date.

[9] The appeal is dismissed.

“Doherty J.A.”

“R.A. Blair J.A.”

“Edward Then R.S.J. (ad hoc)”