R. v. Haaksma
There was no basis to interfere with Speyer J.'s exercise of discretion because no material explained the delay or showed an intention to appeal within time; the transcript demonstrated the appellant spoke prior to sentencing; and the Charter s.11(h) argument failed because there had been no prior final conviction...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C43031
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Eelke Walter Haaksma
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 20 September 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Extension of Time and Merits (appeal From Summary Conviction Appeal Court)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time to Appeal, Intention to Appeal, Double Jeopardy (s.11(h)), Sentencing Procedure, Discretionary Review
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Eelke Walter Haaksma
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Extension of Time and Merits (appeal From Summary Conviction Appeal Court)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether to interfere with Speyer J.'s exercise of discretion to refuse extension of time to appeal
- 2 Whether there was material explaining the delay or evidence that the appellant intended to appeal within the required time
- 3 Whether the appellant spoke and was heard prior to sentencing
Ratio Decidendi
There was no basis to interfere with Speyer J.'s exercise of discretion because no material explained the delay or showed an intention to appeal within time; the transcript demonstrated the appellant spoke prior to sentencing; and the Charter s.11(h) argument failed because there had been no prior final conviction and punishment for the same offence. Appeal dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Haaksma Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2005-09-20 Docket numbers C43031 Judges Goudge, Stephen Thomas; Feldman, Kathryn N.; MacFarland, Jean Louise Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20050920 DOCKET: C43031 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – EELKE WALTER HAAKSMA (Appellant) BEFORE: GOUDGE, FELDMAN AND MACFARLAND JJ.A. COUNSEL: Peter K. McWilliams, Q.C. for the appellant Shelley M. Hallett for the respondent Crown HEARD: September 6, 2005 On appeal from the order of Justice Christopher Speyer of the Summary Conviction Appeal Court dated January 7, 2005. ENDORSEMENT [1] We see no basis for interfering with Speyer J.’s exercise of discretion. There was no material before him to explain the delay in appealing or providing a basis to conclude that the appellant had formed an intention to appeal within the required time. [2] It was also clearly open to Speyer J. to conclude that the appellant spoke and was heard prior to being sentenced. The transcript at pp. 37 and 38 says as much. [3] It was equally open for him to conclude that the Charter argument made by Mr. McWilliams had little merit. Forsyth J. imposed sentence for the conviction he registered which was ultimately the only conviction of the appellant for this event. He had not previously been, in the language of s. 11(h) of the Charter, “finally” found guilty and punished for the same offence. [4] The appeal is dismissed. “S. T. Goudge J.A.” “K. Feldman J.A.” “J. MacFarland J.A.”