R. v. Gibson
The court granted a limited adjournment and a limited s.684 authorization to permit investigation of ineffective assistance and production of records, and ordered that the sentence appeal remain stayed in the regular stream until the conviction appeal is disposed to avoid undermining the represented sentence appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2018 ONCA 79
- Parties
- Appellant: Paul Gibson; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 1 February 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Conviction Appeal Adjourned; Sentence Appeal Stayed Pending Resolution of Conviction Appeal
- Outcome
- Adjournment of conviction appeal granted; limited s.684 authority granted; conviction appeal to be spoken to in the inmate stream on March 7, 2018; sentence appeal to remain in the regular stream and not be rescheduled until the conviction appeal is disposed; publication restriction continued.
- Legal Topics
- Adjournment, Production of Records, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Publication Ban, Sentence Appeal Scheduling
- 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
Paul Gibson
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Conviction Appeal Adjourned; Sentence Appeal Stayed Pending Resolution of Conviction Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether to grant an adjournment of the conviction appeal to permit investigation and applications for production of records and to advance an ineffective assistance of counsel ground
- 2 Whether the sentence appeal should be heard before disposition of the conviction appeal
- 3 Continuation of publication restriction under ss.486.4 and 486.6 of the Criminal Code
Ratio Decidendi
The court granted a limited adjournment and a limited s.684 authorization to permit investigation of ineffective assistance and production of records, and ordered that the sentence appeal remain stayed in the regular stream until the conviction appeal is disposed to avoid undermining the represented sentence appeal.
Court Disposition
Adjournment of conviction appeal granted; limited s.684 authority granted; conviction appeal to be spoken to in the inmate stream on March 7, 2018; sentence appeal to remain in the regular stream and not be rescheduled until the conviction appeal is disposed; publication restriction continued.
Orders
- Adjournment of conviction appeal granted
- Limited s.684 authorization granted to appellant's counsel for investigation of ineffective assistance of counsel and for pursuing production of records
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Gibson Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2018-02-01 Neutral citation 2018 ONCA 79 Docket numbers C60448 Judges Hoy, Alexandra; Sharpe, Robert J.; Rouleau, Paul S. Subject Criminal Decision Content WARNING The President of the panel hearing this appeal directs that the following should be attached to the file: An order restricting publication in this proceeding under ss. 486.4(1), (2), (2.1), (2.2), (3) or (4) or 486.6(1) or (2) of the Criminal Code shall continue. These sections of the Criminal Code provide: 486.4(1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of (a) any of the following offences; (i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 159, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 210, 211, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or (ii) any offence under this Act, as it read at any time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged involves a violation of the complainant’s sexual integrity and that conduct would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or (iii) REPEALED: S.C. 2014, c. 25, s. 22(2), effective December 6, 2014 (Act, s. 49). (b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a). (2) In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall (a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the victim of the right to make an application for the order; and (b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order. (2.1) Subject to subsection (2.2), in proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way. (2.2) In proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice shall (a) as soon as feasible, inform the victim of their right to make an application for the order; and (b) on application of the victim or the prosecutor, make the order. (3) In proceedings in respect of an offence under section 163.1, a judge or justice shall make an order directing that any information that could identify a witness who is under the age of eighteen years, or any person who is the subject of a representation, written material or a recording that constitutes child pornography within the meaning of that section, shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way. (4) An order made under this section does not apply in respect of the disclosure of information in the course of the administration of justice when it is not the purpose of the disclosure to make the information known in the community. 2005, c. 32, s. 15; 2005, c. 43, s. 8(3)(b); 2010, c. 3, s. 5; 2012, c. 1, s. 29; 2014, c. 25, ss. 22, 48; 2015, c. 13, s. 18. 486.6(1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), (2) or (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. (2) For greater certainty, an order referred to in subsection (1) applies to prohibit, in relation to proceedings taken against any person who fails to comply with the order, the publication in any document or the broadcasting or transmission in any way of information that could identify a victim, witness or justice system participant whose identity is protected by the order. 2005, c. 32, s. 15. COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Gibson, 2018 ONCA 79 DATE: 20180129 DOCKET: C60448 Hoy A.C.J.O., Sharpe and Rouleau JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Paul Gibson Appellant Brian Snell, for the appellant Michelle Campbell, for the respondent Heard: January 24, 2018 On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Michael Code of the Superior Court of Justice on February 1, 2013. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] Mr. Gibson’s conviction appeal is in the inmate stream. Mr. Gibson seeks an adjournment of his conviction appeal (C56738) to seek orders for production of records not produced at trial and to advance the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. [2] An adjournment is granted and Mr. Snell is granted a limited s. 684 for the purpose of investigating the ineffective assistance of counsel ground and the records Mr. Gibson seeks. The conviction appeal is to be spoken to in the inmate stream on March 7, 2018. [3] We note that Legal Aid Ontario denied funding for a conviction appeal based on an ineffective assistance of counsel in 2014. It does not appear that the possibility of advancing that ground has been pursued since. [4] In our view, it is unadvisable to hear the sentence appeal before the conviction appeal. [5] The sentence appeal shall remain in the regular appeal stream, and subject to further court order, shall not be rescheduled for argument until the conviction appeal has been disposed of. This is to avoid the risk of the conviction appeal derailing the sentence appeal, on which Mr. Gibson is represented by counsel.