R. v. Tran, 2017 ONCA 482

Case Summary

The appellant sought a review of a decision by Justice MacPherson denying an extension of bail. The appellant moved for appointment of counsel under s. 684 of the Criminal Code and for an adjournment of the review, citing medical evidence of unfitness to self-represent. The court found the review moot because the appellant had been released from custody by the Vanier Institute. The court dismissed the application and imposed restrictions on the appellant's ability to bring further motions without written permission, finding her conduct vexatious and an excessive drain on judicial resources.

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2017-06-06 Docket: C62622/M47609

Panel: Tulloch, Lauwers and Brown JJ.A.

Between

Her Majesty The Queen Respondent

and

Jenny Tran Appellant/Applicant

Counsel

Jenny Tran, acting in person

Holly Loubert, for the respondent

Heard and Released

Heard and released orally: June 6, 2017

On appeal from the order of Justice James MacPherson of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, dated September 6, 2016.

Reasons for Decision

[1] At the moment the appellant is represented by counsel on the appeal, although not on the motion before the panel this morning. The motion is to review the decision of MacPherson J.A. dated September 6, 2016, who denied the appellant an extension of bail.

[2] The appellant was released from custody on February 16, 2017.

[3] The appellant moves before this panel for two items of relief: first, an order pursuant to s. 684 of the Criminal Code, for the appointment of counsel for the purpose of arguing the review of Justice MacPherson's order. Second, she seeks an adjournment of this review, pending the appointment of counsel. She relies on a medical opinion that she lacks fitness to argue the matter herself.

[4] In light of the appellant's release by Vanier Institute, the review of Justice MacPherson's order would appear to be moot. As a result, we dismiss the application that the appellant brings this morning for a s. 684 order and for an adjournment of the review of Justice MacPherson's order.

[5] The appellant's persistence in seeking various remedies in the face of an appeal that is in the hands of counsel, is vexatious. She has consumed much more than her fair share of judicial and other resources. We therefore order that the appellant will not be permitted to pursue additional motions or applications to this court without the permission in writing of a member of this court, based on a written request by the appellant no more than three pages in length without any additional material. Counter staff are instructed not to accept any material from the appellant that is inconsistent with this direction.

[6] This direction does not apply to the appellant's counsel.

M. Tulloch J.A.

P. Lauwers J.A.

David Brown J.A.