R. v. Rowlings

R. v. Rowlings Court Court of Appeal Date 2016-10-12 Citation 2016 NSCA 73 Docket CAC 447359 Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Beveridge, Duncan R. (Honourable Justice) (CA); Hamilton, M. Jill (Honourable Justice); Bourgeois, Cindy A. (Honourable Justice) (CA) Document Type Decision Decision Content Nova Scotia Court of Appeal Citation: R. v. Rowlings, 2016 NSCA 73 Date: 20161012 Docket: CAC 447359 Registry: Halifax Between: John Stewart Rowlings Appellant v. Her Majesty the Queen Respondent Judges: Beveridge, Hamilton and Bourgeois, JJ.A. Appeal Heard: October 11, 2016, in Halifax, Nova Scotia Written Release October 12, 2016 Held: Leave to appeal denied, per oral reasons for judgment of Beveridge, J.A.; Hamilton and Bourgeois, JJ.A. concurring Counsel: David Grant, for the appellant Kenneth W.F. Fiske, Q.C., for the respondent Beveridge, J.A. (orally): [1] This is an appeal from the decision of Justice James L. Chipman (2015 NSSC 356), sitting as a judge of the Summary Conviction Appeal Court, in which he dismissed the appellant's appeal from a decision of Chief Judge Williams of the Provincial Court. Chief Judge Williams found the appellant guilty of dangerous driving, assault with a weapon and failure to stop at an accident, all arising from an incident of "road rage" in Burnside Industrial Park. [2] The appeal is brought pursuant to s. 839 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. It can only be on a question of law, with leave of the Court. [3] In deciding whether leave should be granted, we are to consider the significance of the legal issues raised to the general administration of criminal justice and the merits of the proposed grounds of appeal; R. v. R.E.M., 2011 NSCA 8; R. v. MacNeil, 2009 NSCA 46; R. v. Pottie, 2013 NSCA 68; and R. v. MacDonald, 2013 NSCA 45. [4] Having reviewed the whole of the record, considered counsels’ submissions, and the factors relevant to deciding whether leave should be granted, we are of the unanimous view that leave to appeal should be denied. This denial should not be construed as recording our agreement with all aspects of the state of the law as expressed by the summary conviction appeal court judge. [5] We deny leave to appeal. As a result, it is not necessary to address the merits of the appeal. Beveridge, J.A. Hamilton, J.A. Bourgeois, J.A.