Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-024-00AP DATE: 2024 06 19

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO 491 Steeles Avenue East, Milton ON L9T 1Y7

RE: His Majesty the King AND: Eric Osborne

BEFORE: Conlan J.

COUNSEL: J. Rice, for the Crown/Respondent E. Osborne, Applicant/Appellant, self-represented

HEARD: June 19, 2024

Endorsement

[1] This Endorsement shall be copied to Mr. Osborne (Applicant) and Mr. Rice (Crown counsel for the Respondent), forthwith.

[2] Mr. Osborne’s Application dated 28 March 2024, for an extension of the time to appeal the finding of guilt and the sentence imposed by Justice Morneau on the offence of criminal harassment on 14 April 2022, is dismissed.

[3] After hearing the submissions of Mr. Osborne, it was unnecessary to call upon the Crown.

[4] The governing test is well-established, R. v. J.C.M., at paragraphs 20, 21, and 24. This Application, with respect, meets none of the considerations set out in that decision.

[5] Whether Mr. Osborne has shown a bona fide intention to appeal within the appeal period – no. His Application and his Appeal were brought more than two years after the expiration of the appeal period and more than three months after Mr. Osborne first became aware of the potential for an appeal (when he received legal advice from counsel, Carter Martell, on 18 December 2023). The value of finality of a criminal proceeding, and this first consideration, weigh heavily against the granting of the Application.

[6] Whether Mr. Osborne has accounted for or explained the delay – no. Even if this Court held that the delay up to December 18, 2023 had been adequately explained, undoubtedly the delay after that date is inexplicable and also weighs heavily against the granting of the Application. If Mr. Osborne had been granted such an indulgence that we would not even consider the appeal period starting any earlier than 18 December 2023, he still did not come close to filing his appeal on time.

[7] Whether there is merit to the appeal – no. Although this Court would not describe the argument advanced by Mr. Osborne as being completely devoid of any merit, it is certainly weak. The Notice of Appeal does not even allege a recognized ground of appeal, such as ineffective assistance of counsel or an unreasonable verdict. The transcript from the attendance before Justice Morneau clearly shows that Mr. Osborne pleaded guilty to an offence that included, in its very wording, the fact that he had knowingly harassed the victim. The unwanted, repeated communication by Mr. Osborne was well detailed in the facts recited by the Crown and agreed to by Mr. Osborne. Justice Morneau conducted a fulsome pre-plea comprehension inquiry with Mr. Osborne. Even after the guilty plea was entered and the facts had been read-in by the Crown, Justice Morneau asked Mr. Osborne if he was “comfortable” in the Court entering a finding of guilt, given Mr. Osborne’s comment that not all of the facts were necessarily admitted, to which Mr. Osborne readily answered in the affirmative. Two other Informations against Mr. Osborne were withdrawn by the Crown. A lenient sentence of a period of probation was imposed. Mr. Osborne, frankly, received the benefit of the deal. That the Crown did not specifically say, as part of the facts, that the conduct of Mr. Osborne had caused the complainant to fear for her safety is not fatal to the validity of the finding of guilt. The same would apply if, for example, the Crown had read-in facts on a guilty plea to simple assault that included the accused striking the complainant in the head during an argument but not saying expressly that the striking was not on consent of the complainant. Overall, the Justice was exquisitely fair and patient with Mr. Osborne – the transcript speaks for itself in that regard.

[8] Whether Mr. Osborne has demonstrated that justice requires that the extension of time be granted – no. This proposed appeal is clearly an afterthought that has been brought about only because Mr. Osborne is involved in another criminal proceeding of some sort; the affidavit evidence of Mr. Osborne and Mr. Martell makes that clear.

[9] There is no good reason to doubt the validity of the finding of guilt. This is not one of those exceptional circumstances where there is a real concern that an injustice may have occurred.

[10] Mr. Osborne has failed to meet his onus on the Application, and thus, it has been dismissed.

Conlan J. Released: June 19, 2024