Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2021-06-10 Docket: M52337 (C58723)

Before: Benotto, Trotter and Nordheimer JJ.A.

Between: Her Majesty the Queen Respondent

And: William Russell Stephens Appellant

Counsel: William Russell Stephens, in person Michael Fawcett, for the respondent

Heard: June 7, 2021 by videoconference

On appeal from the decision of the Summary Convictions Appeal Court dated January 29, 2014 by Justice Harrison S. Arrell of the Superior Court of Justice, dismissing the appeal from the conviction entered on July 20, 2009 by Justice Brian Stead of the Ontario Court of Justice.

Reasons for Decision

[1] Mr. Stephens brings a motion in which he seeks to set aside the dismissal of his motion for leave to appeal as abandoned which occurred by order dated May 11, 2016. Mr. Stephens also seeks the appointment of amicus curiae and an order directing that a fresh psychiatric report be prepared regarding whether Mr. Stephens was not criminally responsible (“NCR”) at the time of the offence.

[2] Mr. Stephens raised three issues at the hearing. One relates to disclosure alleged not to have been provided prior to trial; another relates to Mr. Stephens’ view of the qualifications (or lack thereof) of the doctor who prepared the recent psychiatric report; and the third relates to Mr. Stephens disagreement with the conclusion of that report.

[3] With respect to those latter two issues, on August 21, 2015, Juriansz J.A. ordered that a psychiatric report be prepared on the NCR issue. That report was delivered on February 16, 2016. It concluded “the available evidence suggests that Mr. Stephens does not meet criteria to be found not criminally responsible.” The report was prepared by a psychiatrist from Western University.

[4] Mr. Stephens has not provided any explanation for why his motion for leave to appeal should be reinstated after he filed a notice of abandonment on April 25, 2016. The disclosure issues that Mr. Stephens now raises would have been known to him prior to him filing his notice of abandonment.

[5] With respect to the psychiatric report, Mr. Stephens has not provided any proper foundation for his request for the preparation of a new psychiatric report. All that Mr. Stephens says is that the report was prepared “by an unqualified doctor and his conclusions are nonsensical”. Neither of those assertions are borne out by the record.

[6] Mr. Stephens did not address his request for the appointment of amicus curiae. In any event, there is no basis for such an appointment in the circumstances of this case.

[7] The motion is dismissed.

“M.L. Benotto J.A.”

“Gary Trotter J.A.”

“I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A.”