R. v. LeBlanc
Given the serious privilege and confidential informant issues and the potential that the innocence at stake test may be engaged, and because the Crown agrees that other grounds of appeal should be determined first, the court converted the matter to a solicitor appeal, granted a s.684(1) order and appointed counsel...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2025 ONCA 539
- Parties
- Respondent: His Majesty the King; Applicant/appellant: Raymond LeBlanc
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 21 July 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal From Jury Convictions and Sentence / Appeal Court Motion for Directions Under S.683(1)(a) Criminal Code; S.684(1) Counsel Appointment; Conversion to Solicitor Appeal; Case Management
- Outcome
- s.684(1) order granted; matter converted to a solicitor appeal; Mr. Michael Lacy appointed for the limited purpose of pursuing the motion for directions; other grounds of appeal to be determined first; Associate Chief Justice to case manage.
- Legal Topics
- Production Under S.683(1)(a) Criminal Code, Appointment of Counsel Under S.684(1) Criminal Code, Innocence at Stake Test, Confidential Informant Privilege, Solicitor Appeal, Case Management, Robbery, Forcible Confinement, Theft, Possession of Stolen Property
- 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
His Majesty the King
Respondent
Raymond LeBlanc
Applicant/appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal From Jury Convictions and Sentence / Appeal Court Motion for Directions Under S.683(1)(a) Criminal Code; S.684(1) Counsel Appointment; Conversion to Solicitor Appeal; Case Management
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether production should be ordered under s.683(1)(a) Criminal Code given confidential informant issues
- 2 Whether counsel should be appointed under s.684(1) Criminal Code for the prosecution of the production/directions motion
- 3 Whether the 'innocence at stake' threshold may be engaged
Ratio Decidendi
Given the serious privilege and confidential informant issues and the potential that the innocence at stake test may be engaged, and because the Crown agrees that other grounds of appeal should be determined first, the court converted the matter to a solicitor appeal, granted a s.684(1) order and appointed counsel (Mr. Lacy) for the limited purpose of pursuing the motion for directions; the Associate Chief Justice will case manage the matter and the motion will proceed only if other grounds fail.
Court Disposition
s.684(1) order granted; matter converted to a solicitor appeal; Mr. Michael Lacy appointed for the limited purpose of pursuing the motion for directions; other grounds of appeal to be determined first; Associate Chief Justice to case manage.
Orders
- s.684(1) order granted
- Matter converted to a solicitor appeal for the limited purpose of pursuing the motion for directions
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. LeBlanc Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2025-07-21 Neutral citation 2025 ONCA 539 Docket numbers COA-23-CR-0459, M56027 Judges Fairburn, J. Michal; Trotter, Gary T.; Harvison Young, Alison Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. LeBlanc, 2025 ONCA 539 DATE: 20250721 DOCKET: M56027 (COA-23-CR-0459) Fairburn A.C.J.O., Trotter and Harvison Young JJ.A. BETWEEN His Majesty the King Respondent and Raymond LeBlanc Applicant (Appellant) Michael Lacy, appearing as duty counsel Jeremy Streeter, for the respondent Heard and released orally: July 15, 2025 On appeal from the convictions entered by Justice Bruce G. Thomas of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting with a jury, on December 9, 2022, and from the sentence imposed on April 18, 2023. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The applicant appeals from convictions for robbery, forcible confinement, theft, theft of a motor vehicle and possession of stolen property. He also appeals from sentence. The appeal was listed to be heard in January 2025 but did not proceed. An adjournment was granted to permit the applicant to pursue an application for production pursuant to s. 683(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. At the same time, the court granted a s. 684(1) order, appointing counsel for the limited purpose of pursuing this application which was originally characterized as an application for production and now as a motion for directions. [2] We need not recount the application before us in detail, except to say that it is complex, engages confidential informant issues and may require a determination as to whether innocence is at stake. On a previous occasion, the applicant was denied legal counsel pursuant to a s. 684 application. Much has transpired since then, including the articulation of at least one ground of appeal that the Crown now acknowledges as arguable. [3] In our view, given the serious privilege issues identified in the notice of motion for directions, and the potential need to consider whether the innocence at stake test has been met, it is preferable that the other grounds of appeal be determined first. The Crown proposes this course of action, to which the applicant does not object. [4] In light of the sensitive issues now raised, together with the newly advanced ground of appeal, a s. 684 order is granted and the matter shall be converted to a solicitor appeal. Mr. Lacy is appointed for this purpose. Should the grounds of appeal unrelated to the motion for directions fail, then the applicant will pursue the motion. [5] The Associate Chief Justice will case manage the matter, as counsel considers necessary. “Fairburn A.C.J.O.” “G.T. Trotter J.A.” “A. Harvison Young J.A.”