HMTQ v. Skrivanek
- Citation
- 2004 BCSC 1816
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 5 October 2004
- Posture
- Traffic Ticket Appeals Application for Transcript Funding / Oral Reasons for Judgment; Application Dismissed
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 5 October 2004
- Posture
- Traffic Ticket Appeals Application for Transcript Funding / Oral Reasons for Judgment; Application Dismissed
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The applications were dismissed because the applicant's liberty was not at stake and the prospects of success on appeal were exceedingly small, so the court would not exercise its rare authority to order the Crown to pay for transcripts.
Court disposition
Applications dismissed
Orders
- Applications in both files dismissed
02
Material facts
Parties
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent Counsel: G. ParsonMICHAEL HERMANN SKRIVANEK
Appellant Counsel: M.H. SkrivanekAmounts and remedies
- Docket Number: 23,133
- Docket Number: 23,134
03
Procedural history
Posture
Traffic Ticket Appeals Application for Transcript Funding / Oral Reasons for Judgment; Application Dismissed
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Crown should pay for transcripts for two traffic appeals
- 02
Whether the applicant's liberty is at stake such that funding is warranted
- 03
Whether the prospects of success on appeal justify exercising the court's rare power to fund transcripts
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicant sought Crown payment for transcripts to pursue appeals of two traffic matters.
- Respondent
- The Crown (and court) opposed funding because the power is an extraordinary remedy used rarely, the applicant's liberty is not at stake, and the prospects of success on appeal are exceedingly small.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Dohm A.C.J., 2004 BCSC 1816
The court's power to order the Crown to pay for transcripts is an extraordinary remedy and is rarely exercised
- 02
Dohm A.C.J., 2004 BCSC 1816
Primary considerations for granting such funding are whether the applicant's liberty is at stake and the prospects of success on appeal
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The applications were dismissed because the applicant's liberty was not at stake and the prospects of success on appeal were exceedingly small, so the court would not exercise its rare authority to order the Crown to pay for transcripts.
Obiter and limits
- People do not go to jail for running a red light, generally
- This court used to deal with such matters until jurisdiction moved to the Provincial Court
- The applicant may be able to seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, though success is doubtful
Court disposition
Applications dismissed
- Applications in both files dismissed
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of British Columbia · 5 October 2004
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Judgment· 5 October 2004
2004 BCSC 1816 HMTQ v. Skrivanek Citation: HMTQ v. Skrivanek Date: 20041005 2004 BCSC 1816 Docket: 23133 23134 Registry: Vancouver
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Oral Reasons for Judgment The Honourable Associate Chief Justice Dohm October 5, 2004 BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
RESPONDENT AND:
MICHAEL HERMANN SKRIVANEK
APPELLANT Counsel for Crown G. Parson Appearing on his own behalf M.H. Skrivanek Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. October 5, 2004 [1] THE COURT: The issue in this case is whether the Crown should pay for the transcripts for your appeal in two traffic matters. [2] The first thing that has to be mentioned here is that it is a very extraordinary remedy, one that is exercised rarely by this court. It is not unknown but it is rare and it is rare for obvious reasons and before that power is exercised by the court some considerations of the following are made: (1) What are your chances of a successful appeal? (2) Is your liberty at stake? [3] The answer to both questions are vital to the question you pose here, namely: Should the Crown pay for the cost of the transcripts? [4] Firstly, I note that your liberty is not at stake regardless of the outcome of the appeals before or after. People do not go to jail for going through a red light, generally, unless a serious accident occurred; and secondly, the same thing applies with respect to speeding. [5] The chances of your success of an appeal on those sorts of traffic tickets, dated as they are, are exceedingly small. In all likelihood that issue alone would be insurmountable for you in gaining an appeal. [6] This court used to deal with all of these things until the jurisdiction was taken over by the Provincial Court but I have
sat in this court since 1980 and prior to that in the County Court. It would be very rare that an appeal would be successful. [7] When those two issues, that is, the issue of your liberty, which is really not an issue and the one I just spoke of about the chances of success on those appeals, are measured, it seems to me that this would not be an occasion to exercise the rare authority which this court has, namely, to pay for the transcripts of your appeals. [8] Accordingly, Sir, your applications in both files are dismissed. [9] MR. SKRIVANEK: Can I appeal those? [10] THE COURT: You may be able to. I do not know. I have my doubts about that but it may be that the Court of Appeal will hear you. [11] MR. SKRIVANEK: Okay. That's all I need to know. THE COURT: Thank you. "P.D. Dohm, A.C.J." The Honourable Associate Chief Justice P.D. Dohm
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.