R. v. Benhsaien
The appellant abandoned his sentence appeal; the motion judge did not err in declining to appoint counsel under s.684 because the appellant, though impecunious, was found able to articulate and advance his grounds of appeal and some grounds appeared to lack merit; the request to extend time and adjourn the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2023 ONCA 262
- Parties
- Respondent: His Majesty the King; Appellant: Nabil Benhsaien
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 13 April 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Oral Reasons (appeal Hearing Scheduled; Motion Review)
- Outcome
- Sentence appeal dismissed as abandoned; application for appointment of counsel under s.684 dismissed; extension of time to adjourn denied; request for written-only hearing denied; appeal to be heard during May sittings and marked peremptory.
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Appeal Abandonment, Appointment of Counsel Under S.684 Criminal Code, Extension of Time to Adjourn Appeal, Written Hearing Vs Oral Hearing, Peremptory Marking
- 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
Nabil Benhsaien
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Oral Reasons (appeal Hearing Scheduled; Motion Review)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant abandoned his sentence appeal
- 2 Whether the motion judge erred in refusing to appoint counsel under s.684 of the Criminal Code
- 3 Whether an extension of time to adjourn the appeal should be granted
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant abandoned his sentence appeal; the motion judge did not err in declining to appoint counsel under s.684 because the appellant, though impecunious, was found able to articulate and advance his grounds of appeal and some grounds appeared to lack merit; the request to extend time and adjourn the peremptory May sittings was refused; the request for a written-only hearing was refused though the appellant may file written argument but must appear in person for the hearing.
Court Disposition
Sentence appeal dismissed as abandoned; application for appointment of counsel under s.684 dismissed; extension of time to adjourn denied; request for written-only hearing denied; appeal to be heard during May sittings and marked peremptory.
Orders
- Sentence appeal dismissed as abandoned
- Application for appointment of counsel under s.684 dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Benhsaien Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2023-04-13 Neutral citation 2023 ONCA 262 Docket numbers C65649, M54319 Judges Gillese, Eileen E.; Huscroft, Grant; George, Jonathon C. Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Benhsaien, 2023 ONCA 262 DATE: 20230413 DOCKET: M54319 (C65649)] Gillese, Huscroft and George JJ.A. BETWEEN His Majesty the King Respondent and Nabil Benhsaien Appellant Nabil Benhsaien, acting in person (via video conference) Erica Whitford, for the respondent Heard and released orally: April 5, 2023 REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellant advised that he wishes to abandon his sentence appeal. The sentence appeal is therefore dismissed as abandoned. [2] The appellant seeks to set aside the order of the motion judge which dismissed his request for the appointment of counsel pursuant to s. 684 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46. [3] The motion judge found that, while the appellant lacked the financial means to privately retain counsel, he is intelligent, articulate, and had demonstrated an ability to advance his grounds of appeal. The motion judge further observed that some of the grounds of appeal appeared to be without merit. The appellant offers no basis to impugn any of those findings. The basis upon which he seeks his review – his personal circumstances relating to fatigue, and an outstanding immigration matter – are not relevant to a panel review of the motion judge’s decision. The motion is therefore dismissed. [4] Further, the appellant seeks an extension of time which would, in effect, adjourn the hearing of his appeal, now scheduled for the May inmate appeal sittings. We decline to grant that request. This appeal will be heard during the May sittings, and is marked peremptory. [5] The appellant also asks that his conviction appeal be heard in writing. We decline to grant that request. The appellant is permitted, if he wishes, to prepare his argument on appeal in writing. However, he must be present for the hearing of his appeal. “E.E. Gillese J.A.” “Grant Huscroft J.A.” “J. George J.A.”