R. v. Muirhead

R. v. Muirhead Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2025-01-24 Neutral citation 2025 ONCA 53 Docket numbers COA-24-OM-0232, COA-24-OM-0233, M55462 Judges Trotter, Gary T.; Gomery, Sally A.; Madsen, Lene Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Muirhead, 2025 ONCA 53 DATE: 20250124 DOCKET:M55462 (COA-24-OM-0232 & COA-24-OM-0233) Trotter, Gomery and Madsen JJ.A. BETWEEN His Majesty the King Respondent and Dean Muirhead Applicant Dean Muirhead, acting in person Marie Comiskey and Martin Heslop, for the respondent Heard: January 21, 2025 REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The applicant brings a motion under s. 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act., R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, to review the motion judge’s decision dismissing his request for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal in relation to convictions in 2020 (“Proposed Appeal #1”) and 2022 (“Proposed Appeal #2”). In 2020, he was convicted, following summary conviction proceedings in the Ontario Court of Justice, of failure to comply with a breath demand under s. 320.15 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. In 2022, he was convicted, following a guilty plea, of three drug-related offenses under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19. [2] A panel review of the decision of a single motion judge is not a re-hearing of the motion. The panel may interfere with the order of the motion judge only if that judge failed to identify the applicable principles, erred in principle, or reached an unreasonable result: Hillmount Capital Inc. v. Pizale, 2021 ONCA 364, 462 D.L.R. (4th) 228, at para. 18; DeMarco v. Nicoletti, 2017 ONCA 417, at para. 3; Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation, 2017 ONCA 827, 138 O.R. (3d) 1, at para. 21. [3] We have reviewed the thorough and detailed decision of the motion judge. Those reasons reveal no error. The motion judge correctly set out the test for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, and carefully applied that test to the two motions before her. In the absence of affidavit evidence from the applicant, her conclusion that there was neither evidence of an intention to appeal within the required timeline nor adequate explanation for the delay is unassailable. So too is her conclusion that this court is without jurisdiction to hear Proposed Appeal #1, and that Proposed Appeal #2 lacks merit. The application of the test for an extension of time is, in any event, a discretionary decision entitled to deference. We see no basis to intervene. [4] We note that the applicant again renewed his request to have a non-lawyer speak for him in this court. We denied that request. [5] The applicant’s motion is dismissed. “Gary Trotter J.A.” “S. Gomery J.A.” “L. Madsen J.A.”