COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: R. v. Tran, 2016 ONCA 638

DATE: 20160819

DOCKET: M46654 (C60204)

Watt, van Rensburg and Roberts JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Jenny Tran

Applicant (Appellant)

Jenny Tran, acting in person

Holly Loubert, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: August 18, 2016

ENDORSEMENT

[1] We are not persuaded that the material filed warrants an adjournment of the applicant’s motion to review the order of the chambers judge. The record reveals a robust history of last minute requests for adjournments on grounds not dissimilar to those advanced now. Ms. Tran is well familiar with the court’s practice in connection with inmate and in person appeals. The application for an adjournment is dismissed.

[2] The applicant, who is self-represented, seeks to set aside an order of the chambers judge made on June 16, 2016. By that order, the chambers judge:

i. rejected the applicant’s request to direct the Crown to produce transcripts of further portions of the trial proceedings for use on the applicant’s in person appeal;

ii. extended the applicant’s release pending appeal until the date scheduled for hearing, September 6, 2016; and

iii. rejected the applicant’s request to adjourn the appeal from the date scheduled for hearing.

[3] We see no reason to interfere with any aspect of the order made by the chambers judge.

[4] First, the transcripts. As an inmate/in person appeal, the materials provided to the parties and the court do not include a complete transcript of trial proceedings. Indeed, the record in this case significantly exceeds the requirements of the applicable rule and includes the entirety of the applicant’s own evidence, the closing submissions of the applicant and the trial Crown and proceedings relating to several motions the applicant made at this lengthy trial.

[5] The applicant’s submissions seem grounded on her assumption of two entitlements:

i. that she is entitled to a trial transcript of the trial proceedings in their entirety, extending over some 70 days; and

ii. that such entitlement is to be funded out of the public purse.

In both respects, she is wrong. Duty counsel and the Crown have collaborated in putting together a record that they deem adequate for appellate purposes. The Crown did not undertake, nor did any judge or panel of this court order a complete transcript of the proceedings for appellate purposes. We see no reason to accede to yet another of the applicant’s unremitting requests for “more transcript”.

[6] Second, release pending appeal. The applicant’s current release terms were extended to the scheduled hearing date. Rather than surrender into custody at a jail, she is to surrender into custody by appearing before the panel who will hear her appeal. This is as it should be. As the chambers judge advised her, if her appeal is dismissed she will be required to surrender into custody to serve any unserved portion of any custodial sentence imposed upon her at trial.

[7] Third, adjournment of the hearing date. As the chambers judge pointed out, the appeal record is complete. On a prior appearance before a panel of this court sitting in the inmate/in person stream, the hearing date of September 6, 2016 was fixed. Failing an order for further transcript, an issue that has now been decided against the applicant, the hearing was to be marked peremptory to the applicant. That, too, is as it should be. Nothing she has added in her submissions today, whether considered individually or cumulatively with grounds previously advanced, persuades us to the contrary.

[8] The application to review the order of the chambers judge is dismissed.

“David Watt J.A.”

“K.M. van Rensburg J.A.”

“L.B. Roberts J.A.”