R. v. Hennick

R. v. Hennick Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2003-04-09 Docket numbers C38907 Judges Charron, Louise Vivianne; Feldman, Kathryn N.; Simmons, Janet M. Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20030409 DOCKET: C38907 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON (Respondent) - and - GAYLE HENNICK (Appellant) - and - LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE (Intervenor) BEFORE: CHARRON, FELDMAN and SIMMONS JJ.A. COUNSEL: Gayle Hennick In person Janice L. Page For the respondent, Corporation of the City of London HEARD: APRIL 3, 2003 RELEASED ORALLY: APRIL 3, 2003 On appeal from the order of Justice William A. Jenkins of the Superior Court of Justice dated October 2, 2002, dismissing the appellant's application for certiorari under s. 140(1) of the Provincial Offences Act. ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant appeals from the dismissal by Justice Jenkins of the motion for certiorari which sought to quash the interlocutory orders of Justices Menzies and Pockele. [2] On certiorari, the question for Justice Jenkins was whether the subject orders were made within the jurisdiction of the two judges. Our jurisdiction in this appeal is similarly limited. Both orders under review dealt in part with the necessity of providing a transcript for the appeal. We agree with Justice Jenkins that those orders were within the jurisdiction of the judges hearing the interlocutory motions. However, the propriety of the orders is not a jurisdictional question and therefore was not a matter for Justice Jenkins or for this court to determine. [3] Justice Pockele also dealt with the question of whether London Health Science Centre was a necessary party to the appeal. To the extent that he answered that question in the affirmative, we interpret his order to mean that because London Health Science Centre was granted intervenor status at the trial, it is entitled to participate in the appeal in relation to the first issue raised on the appeal as to the propriety of adding it as an intervenor. If, on the appeal, that issue is decided in favour of the appellant, then it would follow that there would be no further entitlement of London Science Centre to participate in the appeal. To that extent, we agree with Justice Jenkins that the order of Justice Pockele was made within his jurisdiction. An order as to the proper party status of London Health Science Centre on a final basis is for the judge hearing the appeal. [4] The appellant also asks this court to order a bifurcated proceeding and for that purpose to suspend the requirement that the transcript be ordered. This court has no jurisdiction on this appeal to make that order. We note that Justice Pockele has already decided that he would not suspend the order requiring that the transcript be ordered for the appeal. However, he did suggest that once the transcript is prepared, the parties may consider proceeding in a bifurcated manner. His disposition of those issues was also within his jurisdiction and is not subject to review. [5] For these reasons the appeal is dismissed. Signed: "Louise Charron J.A." "K. Feldman J.A." "Janet Simmons J.A."