Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2017-06-06 Docket: C62611

Judges: Juriansz, Epstein and Pepall JJ.A.

Between

Her Majesty the Queen Respondent

and

Patrick Reilly Appellant

Counsel

Atrisha Lewis, for the appellant Michael Medeiros, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: May 29, 2017

Background

On appeal from the decision of the Summary Convictions Appeal Court dated August 4, 2016 by Justice Ian A. MacDonnell of the Superior Court of Justice, dismissing the appeal from the conviction entered on October 9, 2014 by Justice Sarah Cleghorn of the Ontario Court of Justice.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The applicant seeks leave to appeal from the dismissal of his appeal to the Superior Court from his conviction in the Ontario Court of Justice of uttering threats to cause death.

[2] In order to succeed on this application, he must satisfy the court he is appealing on a question of law that has arguable merit and significance to the administration of justice beyond his particular case, or that there is a clear error in the decision below, especially if his conviction is serious and he is facing a significant deprivation of his liberty.

[3] The application fails on both branches of the test.

[4] On the first branch, appellant's counsel advances two related arguments.

[5] First, she submits that whether emotional content is within the scope of solicitor-client privilege is a question that affects the administration of justice generally and is worthy of consideration by this court. That may be but the question does not arise in this case. The appellant's communications in this case, whether emotional or otherwise, do not fall within the scope of solicitor-client privilege.

[6] Second, appellant's counsel argues that the summary conviction appeal judge's failure to deal with her oral argument about solicitor-client privilege is a clear error of law alone. Reasons for judgment must be read in the context of the proceeding as a whole, including closing argument of counsel. The judge responded to counsel's arguments at that stage. We do not accept the assertion he had to address it in his reasons as well. As we have stated, there was no issue of solicitor-client privilege in this case.

[7] On the second branch, we see no clear error in the disposition below, and the appellant, having received a suspended sentence, is not facing a deprivation of liberty.

[8] The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

R.G. Juriansz J.A. Gloria Epstein J.A. S.E. Pepall J.A.