Court of Appeal for Ontario
Citation: R. v. Hicks, 2016 ONCA 291 Date: 2016-04-21 Docket: M45895 (C59588)
Before: Strathy C.J.O., Gillese and Pardu JJ.A.
Between:
Her Majesty the Queen ex rel. The Corporation of the City of London Respondent
and
Ryan Hicks Appellant
Counsel: Jennifer L. Hunter, for the appellant Kelly Nenniger, for the respondent
Heard: April 19, 2016
Motion for directions.
Endorsement
[1] The appellant unfortunately died after leave to appeal was granted. Counsel moves for an order substituting a personal representative or other person as appellant. The municipal prosecutor seeks to abate the appeal, submitting that the court has no jurisdiction to continue a proceeding that has been rendered moot.
[2] The jurisdiction to continue an appeal in a criminal matter, after the death of the appellant, should be exercised sparingly and only where it is in the interests of justice do so: R. v. Smith 2004 SCC 14 at para. 20. That observation has even greater force in a prosecution under the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33.
[3] Assuming, without deciding, that we have jurisdiction, we decline to exercise it, for three reasons. First, the appeal concerns a traffic ticket carrying a fine of $95. The appeal has no practical consequences for the estate of the deceased. Second, the issue is not evasive of judicial review, given the vast number of traffic tickets issued annually in the province. Third, and most important, this appeal involves the interpretation of a form prescribed by regulation. A decision in this matter would have province-wide implications for the validity of convictions under Part I of the POA. Without a better factual record it would not be in the interests of justice to hear the appeal.
[4] The appeal is therefore abated and the judgment below is stayed.
[5] We express the court’s appreciation for the assistance of counsel for the appellant, who was initially retained as amicus on the leave motion.
"G.R. Strathy C.J.O."
"E.E. Gillese J.A."
"G. Pardu J.A."