R. v. Conway, 2008 ONCA 875

Citation: R. v. Conway, 2008 ONCA 875

Date: 2008-12-22

Docket: C48862

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Doherty, Rosenberg and Cronk JJ.A.

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Paul Martin Conway

Appellant

Counsel:

Paul Martin Conway, appearing in person Michael Davies, as amicus curiae

Brad Greenshields, for the respondent, Her Majesty the Queen Janice Blackburn, for the respondent, CAMH

Heard and orally released: December 12, 2008

On appeal from the order of the Ontario Review Board, dated January 3, 2008.

Endorsement

[1] The appellant seeks an adjournment pending the outcome of his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from a decision of this court arising out of the 2006 disposition of the Board. The decision of this court was written by Armstrong J.A. and Lang J.A. dissented. The issue on the leave application relates to the Charter jurisdiction of the Board.

[2] The appellant submits that he finds himself in a “mud puddle” of proceedings that have created considerable overlap and confusion for him insofar as addressing each of those various proceedings is concerned. We note that if leave to appeal is granted by the Supreme Court of Canada, the decision of the Supreme Court could affect the further proceedings before the Board and the arguments that the appellant would be permitted to raise in those further proceedings.

[3] It is also clear to us that whether we grant the adjournment, proceed to hear the appeal and dismiss the appeal, or allow the appeal and grant the remedy sought (a new hearing), the “on the ground” reality for the appellant will not change. The appellant will be back before the Board in short order with all sides requesting an adjournment of the hearing before the Board pending the outcome of the leave application in the Supreme Court of Canada.

[4] We have considered the submissions quite properly put by the respondents in opposition to the adjournment request. We do not, however, see any detriment to the public interests that they represent should an adjournment be granted. Mr. Conway’s status will not change if an adjournment is granted. He will remain subject to the terms of the Board’s order. These are the terms that the respondents claim are the appropriate terms in all the circumstances.

[5] We think the balance favours granting the adjournment requested by the appellant, Mr. Conway. We will adjourn this appeal. Doherty J.A. is prepared to assume a case management role and make himself available to discuss with the parties any further scheduling issues that may arise when the Supreme Court of Canada ultimately determines the question of leave.

“Doherty J.A.”

“M. Rosenberg J.A.”

“E.A. Cronk J.A.”