Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2025-07-22
Docket: COA-25-OM-0236
Judge: Peter Lauwers (Motion Judge)

Between:
His Majesty the King (Respondent/Responding Party)
and
Melissa Hart (Appellant/Moving Party)

Appearances:
Melissa Hart, acting in person
Evan Akriotis, for the respondent/responding party

Heard: In writing

Endorsement

Background

[1] On September 19, 2019, after trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Melissa Hart was found guilty of one count of assault for which she was later given a suspended sentence with two years probation. Shortly thereafter, on October 1, 2019, Ms. Hart was convicted on multiple counts of failure to comply with an undertaking for contacting the complainant on a dozen occasions after her arrest. She was given a sentence of a suspended sentence with two years probation.

Ms. Hart appealed her convictions jointly to summary conviction appeal court. The court dismissed Ms. Hart’s appeal on October 24, 2022, finding that Ms. Hart had received “two procedurally fair trials with convictions supported by the evidence”, and that “[s]he was not denied disclosure of any material evidence”.

Grounds for Motion

[2] Ms. Hart seeks an order granting leave for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal to this court from the decision of the summary conviction appeal court. She cites as grounds:

1. There has been a miscarriage of justice in that the trial court erred in law and did not apply the applicable legal standard of proof, and found that the Crown had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt on the evidence; the verdict is unreasonable and is not supported by the evidence contrary to s. 813 and s. 686(1)(a)(i)(iii) of the Code.
2. That an appeal has not been heard and decided on its merits and it is in the interest of justice to reopen the appeal.

Prior Proceedings

[3] This is not Ms. Hart’s first effort to appeal to this court. Her conduct in this matter resembles her conduct respecting an unrelated charge of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit: R. v. Hart, 2025 ONCA 451.

[4] The Crown has usefully summarized the proceedings in this matter after Ms. Hart’s convictions:

• The Crown proceeded summarily in both matters.
• Ms. Hart appealed her convictions for both matters jointly in the summary conviction appeal court. On October 24, 2022, Campbell J. dismissed the appeals.
• In January 2023, Ms. Hart applied to this Court for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal from the decision of the summary conviction appeal court. The motion was heard, and dismissed, by MacPherson J.A. on February 7, 2023. He found that the proposed appeal did not raise questions of law alone, and lacked merit.
• On February 13, 2023, Ms. Hart filed a new motion for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal from the decision of the summary conviction appeal court. On February 23, Ms. Hart was notified by a staff lawyer at the Court of Appeal that her motion would not be accepted for filing, and that she could bring a fresh motion for an extension of time if there was a material change in circumstances.
• On March 1, 2023, Ms. Hart filed a new motion for extension of time. On March 8, Ms. Hart was notified by the Appeal Case Management Officer that her motion was not accepted for filing.
• On March 9, 2023, Ms. Hart filed a fourth motion for an extension of time. This motion was accepted for filing and was heard on March 27. Favreau J.A. issued an endorsement on March 28 dismissing the motion, and noted that Ms. Hart had not raised any material change in circumstances.
• On March 29, 2023, Ms. Hart filed a new motion for extension of time. On April 12, 2023, Ms. Hart was advised by a staff lawyer at the Court of Appeal that her application was not accepted for filing, and that the Court will not accept any further filings with respect to this motion unless Ms. Hart first obtained leave from the criminal list judge.
• On April 21, 2023, Ms. Hart filed a new motion for an extension of time and included a letter to the criminal list judge seeking leave. It is unclear from the Crown’s file how the Court responded to this filing, but it does not appear to have been listed for a hearing.
• On November 7, 2024, Ms. Hart filed a motion in this Court to re-open her summary conviction appeal. This motion was accepted for filing and listed for a hearing, but was abandoned prior to the hearing (COA-24-OM-0358).
• On March 18, 2025, Ms. Hart filed a motion for directions, seeking directions as to whether she should file another motion for an extension of time or file a motion to reopen her appeal. This motion was accepted for filing and listed for a hearing, but was abandoned prior to the hearing (COA-25-OM-0084).
• On June 14, 2025, Ms. Hart filed this motion to re-open her summary conviction appeal.

Jurisdiction and Legal Principles

[5] The Crown argues that this court has no jurisdiction, so that the motion must be dismissed. The Crown also requests that I make a direction like the panel’s direction in R. v. Hart, 2025 ONCA 451, para 8:

Therefore, in addition to dismissing the application to re-open, we prohibit the applicant from filing any documents with this court pertaining to her April 2, 2015 summary conviction for driving with a blood alcohol content over the legal limit without the permission in writing of a member of this court, based on a written request by the applicant no more than three pages in length without any additional material. Counter staff are instructed not to accept any material from the applicant that is inconsistent with this direction: see R. v. Tran, 2017 ONCA 482, para 5.

[6] It is clear law that any right to appeal must be rooted in legislation. If there is no legislation that establishes a right to appeal, then there is no appeal: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Ontario, 2011 ONCA 624, para 16, and Cavanaugh v. Grenville Christian College, 2013 ONCA 139, para 11, both citing R. v. Meltzer, para 14.

[7] In his dismissal of her motion, MacPherson J.A. noted:

The proposed appeal must be on “a question of law alone”: Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s. 839(1); see also R. v. R.R., 2008 ONCA 497, para 24. The applicant advances two grounds of appeal: (1) the summary conviction judge erred in failing to find that the applicant’s right was infringed under s. 11(b) of the Charter; and (2) the trial judge erred in finding that the Crown had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

[8] Neither s. 813 nor s. 686(1)(a)(i)(iii) of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, both of which Ms. Hart cites, give her an avenue of appeal. The former is the provision to appeal a conviction to the summary conviction court, and the latter is confined to verdicts that the appellant is unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. To appeal to the Court of Appeal from a decision of the summary conviction court, the correct provision is s. 839(1) which does not allow for an appeal unless it is on a question of law alone.

[9] Justice MacPherson concluded:

The first ground of appeal [that the summary conviction judge erred in failing to find that the applicant’s right was infringed under s. 11(b) of the Charter] does not raise a question of law alone, let alone one that would seriously call into question the full and fair reasons of the summary conviction judge.

The second ground of appeal [that the trial judge erred in finding that the Crown had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt] is aimed at the trial judge’s reasons, not those of the summary conviction judge. However, even if the focus is shifted to the proper judge, the issue is essentially one of mixed fact and law.

[10] Favreau J.A. took the same approach, noting that Ms. Hart’s reframing of the issues was insufficient.

[11] In the grounds advanced on this motion, once again, Ms. Hart does not identify “a question of law alone”, which is required for her to advance an appeal to this court from the summary conviction appeal court under s. 839(1). Ms. Hart has not established that this court has jurisdiction to proceed.

Disposition

[12] Accordingly, I dismiss Ms. Hart’s motion to re-open this appeal. I also prohibit her from filing any documents with this court pertaining to her September 19, 2019 conviction of one count of assault and her October 1, 2019 convictions on multiple counts of failure to comply with an undertaking or to any of the related proceedings listed above without the permission in writing of a member of this court, based on a written request by the applicant no more than three pages in length without any additional material. I direct counter staff not to accept any material from the applicant that is not consistent with this direction.

“P. Lauwers J.A.”