WARNING

The President of the panel hearing this appeal directs that the following should be attached to the file:

An order restricting publication in this proceeding under ss. 539(1), (2), (3) or (4) of the Criminal Code shall continue. These sections of the Criminal Code provide:

539(1) Prior to the commencement of the taking of evidence at a preliminary inquiry, the justice holding the inquiry

(a) may, if application therefor is made by the prosecutor, and

(b) shall, if application therefor is made by any of the accused,

make an order directing that the evidence taken at the inquiry shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way before such time as, in respect of each of the accused,

(c) he or she is discharged; or

(d) if he or she is ordered to stand trial, the trial is ended.

(2) Where an accused is not represented by counsel at a preliminary inquiry, the justice holding the inquiry shall, prior to the commencement of the taking of evidence at the inquiry, inform the accused of his right to make application under subsection (1).

(3) Everyone who fails to comply with an order made pursuant to subsection (1) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction

(4) [Repealed, 2005, c. 32, s. 18(2).]

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 539; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s.97; 2005, c. 32, s. 18.

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: R. v. Tingle, 2018 ONCA 572

DATE: 20180622

DOCKET: C65396

Sharpe, Roberts and Trotter JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Sheldon Tingle

Appellant

Marianne Salih, for the appellant

Chris Webb, for the respondent

Heard: June 19, 2018

On appeal from the judgment of Justice A. O’Marra of the Superior Court of Justice, dated January 22, 2018, denying certiorari to quash the order of Justice Lloyd Budzsinski of the Ontario Court of Justice, dated April 19, 2017, committing the appellant to trial.

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] We are not persuaded that the application judge erred by refusing to grant certiorari with mandamus-in-aid in relation to the preliminary inquiry judge’s decision to commit the appellant for trial on a charge of first-degree murder and knowingly participating in the activity of a criminal organization for the purpose of facilitating the organization to commit the offence of first degree murder.

[2] In view of the application judge’s careful and detailed reasons with which we are in essential agreement, this appeal may be disposed of with brief reasons.

[3] [This paragraph refers to the evidence taken at the preliminary inquiry and has been edited pending completion of the proceedings pursuant to the non-publication order of Justice Lloyd Budzinski of the Ontario Court of Justice. The full text of the decision is available at the Registry of the court.]

[4] [This paragraph refers to the evidence taken at the preliminary inquiry and has been edited pending completion of the proceedings pursuant to the non-publication order of Justice Lloyd Budzinski of the Ontario Court of Justice. The full text of the decision is available at the Registry of the court.]

[5] The preliminary inquiry judge recognized that: “The evidence must be capable of reasonable inferences, not mere speculation” and that the drawing of inferences was “a decision for the jury, or of weighing the evidence, and not [a decision] of the preliminary inquiry judge.” The preliminary inquiry judge fairly considered the evidence and decided that the Crown had met the minimal threshold required to justify committal.

[6] The appellant does not suggest that the application judge misdirected himself on the legal test for certiorari to quash a committal for trial. As the application judge stated, at para. 5: “The task of the reviewing court is to consider whether there is any evidence before the committing justice, acting judicially, upon which he or she could form an opinion that the evidence is sufficient to put the accused on trial.”

[7] [This paragraph refers to the evidence taken at the preliminary inquiry and has been edited pending completion of the proceedings pursuant to the non-publication order of Justice Lloyd Budzinski of the Ontario Court of Justice. The full text of the decision is available at the Registry of the court.]

[8] [This paragraph refers to the evidence taken at the preliminary inquiry and has been edited pending completion of the proceedings pursuant to the non-publication order of Justice Lloyd Budzinski of the Ontario Court of Justice. The full text of the decision is available at the Registry of the court.]

[9] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

“Robert J. Sharpe J.A.”

“L.B. Roberts J.A.”

“G.T. Trotter J.A.”