Court File and Parties

CITATION: R. v. Nourhaghighi, 2008 ONCA 456

DATE: 20080616

DOCKET: C46310 C46533 C46959 C47428

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

MOLDAVER, SIMMONS and ROULEAU JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

and

MAJOR KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI

Appellant

Appellant appearing in person

Frank Au and Heather MacKay for the respondent

Heard and released orally: June 4, 2008

On appeal from the orders of Justices W. Brian Trafford, Gloria J. Epstein, Archie Campbell and Ian V.B. Nordheimer, all of the Superior Court of Justice, dated November 27, 2006, January 8, 2007, March 15, 2007 and June 18, 2007, respectively.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] There are four appeals before us today arising out of two applications. First, application SM031-06, in which the appellant sought orders that: (i) the Attorney General and this court cease discriminatory practices against him; (ii) this court provide general directions concerning the interpretation and application of s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act; and (iii) prior orders dismissing appeals against conviction be set aside. Second, application SM153-06 in which the appellant sought orders that Ducharme J. withdraw from application SM31-06 and that the Attorney General seek various relief from the Canadian Judicial Council in relation to a complaint by the appellant against Ducharme J.

[2] On March 15, 2007 Campbell J. struck application SM153-06 because there were no pending proceedings before Ducharme J. and because the Superior Court has no jurisdiction over proceedings before the Canadian Judicial Council.

[3] On June 18, 2007, Nordheimer J. struck application SM031-06 because the appellant had not sought leave under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act to bring his application and because portions of the application constituted a collateral attack on final orders made in criminal proceedings.

[4] We see no error in the order of Campbell J. As for the order of Nordheimer J., we agree that those portions of the application that sought to set aside final orders in criminal proceedings constituted an improper collateral attack on these orders. As for the remaining relief sought, it related either to prior criminal proceedings and was therefore an improper collateral attack on final orders or it was a request for a general declaration for which leave was required under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, which the appellant had not obtained. Accordingly, appeals C47428 and C46959 are dismissed.

[5] The appellant did not make oral submissions today concerning his appeal of the order of Trafford J. dated November 27, 2006. That order was an order for an adjournment of application SM153-06. There is neither jurisdiction to entertain, nor merit, in this appeal. Accordingly, appeal C46310 is dismissed.

[6] On January 8, 2007, Epstein J. dismissed a motion by the appellant to find two Crown counsel in contempt. The appellant has demonstrated no error in this decision. Appeal C46533 is dismissed.

“M. J. Moldaver J.A.”

“Janet Simmons J.A.”

“Paul Rouleau J.A.”