Court and Parties

Court of Appeal for Ontario Date: 2021-06-10 Docket: M52184

Benotto, Trotter and Nordheimer JJ.A.

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen Respondent

And:

Darren John Appellant

Counsel: Darren John, in person Nicole Rivers, for the respondent

Heard: In writing

On appeal from the decision of the Summary Convictions Appeal Court dated January 19, 2021 by Justice Peter J. Cavanagh of the Superior Court of Justice, dismissing the appeal from the conviction entered on June 30, 2015 by Justice Lucia Favret of the Ontario Court of Justice.

Reasons for Decision

[1] Mr. John seeks leave to appeal from the dismissal of his appeal from his conviction and sentence on a charge of knowingly uttering or causing a person to receive a threat to cause bodily harm contrary to s. 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. The appellant was sentenced to a suspended sentence with a one year period of probation.

[2] The summary conviction appeal court judge gave detailed reasons for rejecting each of the 14 issues raised by Mr. John on his appeal.

[3] While Mr. John repeats the issues he advanced in the court below, the main basis for which he now seeks leave to appeal revolves around the fact that some disclosure was not provided to him prior to his trial. It appears from the material filed that a disclosure package was made available to Mr. John’s former counsel but at a time after that lawyer had ceased to act for Mr. John.

[4] This issue arose during the course of Mr. John’s trial. He was advised by the trial judge as to the proper procedure to address this issue, including writing first to Crown counsel about it and then, if still unsatisfied, raising the issue with the trial judge. It appears that Mr. John did not undertake either of those steps.

[5] After his conviction, Mr. John brought many procedural motions, at least one of which touched on this disclosure issue. All but one of those motions were summarily dismissed, including the motion relating to the disclosure issue.

[6] The test for granting leave to appeal in a summary conviction matter is well-established. Leave should be granted sparingly. Two key variables will normally determine whether leave should be granted – the significance of the legal issues raised to the general administration of criminal justice, and the merits of the proposed grounds of appeal: R. v. R. (R.) (2008), 2008 ONCA 497, 90 O.R. (3d) 641 (C.A.).

[7] This case does not have any significance to the general administration of justice. Further, there is an absence of merit to the appeal. The disclosure that Mr. John complains he did not receive, and thus could not use at his trial, relates principally to one of the charges on which he was acquitted. Further, his failure to raise the issue during the course of the trial is fatal to his complaint.

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

“M.L. Benotto J.A.”

“Gary Trotter J.A.”

“I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A.”