R. v. Wood
The orders refusing state-funded counsel and refusing adjournment are interlocutory; the Criminal Code does not authorize appeals from such interlocutory orders; therefore the notices of appeal were premature and must be quashed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 1998 NSCA 153
- Parties
- Appellant: John Douglas Wood; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 16 June 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Crown Application to Quash Interlocutory Notices of Appeal
- Outcome
- Crown's application to quash the two notices of appeal granted.
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Appeals, State Funded Counsel, Appealability, Premature Appeal
- 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
John Douglas Wood
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Crown Application to Quash Interlocutory Notices of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether orders refusing state-funded counsel and refusing adjournment are interlocutory and appealable
- 2 Whether the Criminal Code authorizes appeal from such interlocutory orders
Ratio Decidendi
The orders refusing state-funded counsel and refusing adjournment are interlocutory; the Criminal Code does not authorize appeals from such interlocutory orders; therefore the notices of appeal were premature and must be quashed.
Court Disposition
Crown's application to quash the two notices of appeal granted.
Orders
- Applications to quash the two notices of appeal granted
- Notices of appeal quashed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Wood Court Court of Appeal Date 1998-06-16 Citation 1998 NSCA 153 Docket 147204, CAC 146975 Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Jones, Malachi C. (Honourable Justice) (CA); Freeman, Gerald B. (Honourable Justice) (CA); Hallett, J. Doane (Honourable Justice) (CA) Document Type Decision Relations Library Sheet - R. v. Wood - 1998 NSCA 153 - 1998-06-16 - Library Sheet Decision Content Date: 19980616 Docket: C.A.C. 146975 C.A.C. 147204 NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Cite as: R. v. Wood, 1998 NSCA 153 Freeman, Jones and Hallett, JJ.A. BETWEEN: JOHN DOUGLAS WOOD ) Appellant in person ) Appellant ) ) - and - ) ) Kenneth W.F. Fiske, Q.C. ) for the Respondent HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) ) Respondent ) Appeal Heard: ) June 16, 1998 ) ) ) Judgment Delivered: ) June 16, 1998 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) THE COURT: Crown’s application to quash the two notices of appeal granted per oral reasons for judgment of Hallett, J.A.; Jones and Freeman, JJ.A. concurring. HALLETT, J.A.: (Orally) The Crown has applied to quash two notices of appeal from decisions of Justice Gruchy. He refused the appellant’s motion to order that he be provided with state funded counsel and refused to adjourn the trial to allow the appellant’s appeal from that decision. The appellant says these are not interlocutory appeals as the orders were made before the selection of the jury. In our opinion, these are appeals from interlocutory orders. There is no appeal authorized by the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 from such orders. The appeals are premature. (Mills v. R. (1986), 26 C.C.C. (3d) 481 (S.C.C.); R. v. Murdock (1995), 141 N.S.R. (2d) 251 (N.S.C.A.)). The Crown’s applications are granted. Hallett, J.A. Concurred in: Jones, J.A. Freeman, J.A. C.A.C. No.146975 C.A.C. No. 147204 NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: JOHN DOUGLAS WOOD ) Appellant ) - and - ) REASONS FOR ) JUDGMENT BY: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) ) HALLETT, J.A. ) (Orally) Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) )