COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: R. v. Sarkozy, 2014 ONCA 481

DATE: 20140620

DOCKET: C58027

Laskin, Cronk and Pardu JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Violette Sarkozy

Appellant

Aaron Dantowitz, for the appellant

Chris Dwornikiewicz, for the respondent

Heard: June 19, 2014

On appeal from the decision of Justice E.N. Libman of the Ontario Court of Justice, dated December 20, 2012, allowing an appeal, in part, from the judgment of Justice of the Peace P. Gettlich, of the Ontario Court of Justice, dated March 12, 2012.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] There is conflicting evidence in this case on almost every material aspect of the alleged communications between the appellant and the paralegal she retained to assist her on the Highway Traffic Act charges she faced. The conflicts in the evidence require credibility determinations on a paper record.

[2] At the end of the day, there was, at the very least, a misunderstanding that led both the appellant and the paralegal to not attend the appellant’s trial. As a result, the trial proceeded ex parte, leading to the appellant’s convictions on both charges.

[3] There are similar conflicts on the evidence regarding the appellant’s knowledge of and consent to the resolution reached at the subsequent appeal hearing. Suffice to say, the apparent unfairness at the trial proceeding was not cured by what occurred at the appeal hearing, which also proceeded in the appellant’s absence, and the appellant has not had her day in court.

[4] In these circumstances, the interests of justice require that the appellant’s remaining conviction (one conviction having been set aside at the appeal hearing below) be set aside and a new trial ordered to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

[5] The appeal is therefore allowed in accordance with these reasons.