Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2025-07-21
Docket: M56027 (COA-23-CR-0459)
Coram: Michal Fairburn, Grant T. Trotter, Alison Harvison Young

Between:
His Majesty the King (Respondent)
and
Raymond LeBlanc (Applicant/Appellant)

Appearances:
Michael Lacy, appearing as duty counsel for the applicant
Jeremy Streeter, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: July 15, 2025

On appeal from the convictions entered by Justice Bruce G. Thomas of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting with a jury, on December 9, 2022, and from the sentence imposed on April 18, 2023.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The applicant appeals from convictions for robbery, forcible confinement, theft, theft of a motor vehicle and possession of stolen property. He also appeals from sentence. The appeal was listed to be heard in January 2025 but did not proceed. An adjournment was granted to permit the applicant to pursue an application for production pursuant to s. 683(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. At the same time, the court granted a s. 684(1) order, appointing counsel for the limited purpose of pursuing this application which was originally characterized as an application for production and now as a motion for directions.

[2] We need not recount the application before us in detail, except to say that it is complex, engages confidential informant issues and may require a determination as to whether innocence is at stake. On a previous occasion, the applicant was denied legal counsel pursuant to a s. 684 application. Much has transpired since then, including the articulation of at least one ground of appeal that the Crown now acknowledges as arguable.

[3] In our view, given the serious privilege issues identified in the notice of motion for directions, and the potential need to consider whether the innocence at stake test has been met, it is preferable that the other grounds of appeal be determined first. The Crown proposes this course of action, to which the applicant does not object.

[4] In light of the sensitive issues now raised, together with the newly advanced ground of appeal, a s. 684 order is granted and the matter shall be converted to a solicitor appeal. Mr. Lacy is appointed for this purpose. Should the grounds of appeal unrelated to the motion for directions fail, then the applicant will pursue the motion.

[5] The Associate Chief Justice will case manage the matter, as counsel considers necessary.

“Michal Fairburn”
“Grant T. Trotter”
“Alison Harvison Young”