R. v. Bernier
- Citation
- 2026 ONCA 122
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 18 February 2026
- Posture
- Criminal (provincial Offences Under Taxation Act, 2007) / Appeal From Superior Court Dismissal of Certiorari Application to Court of Appeal; Hearing on Mootness and Publication Ban
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 18 February 2026
- Posture
- Criminal (provincial Offences Under Taxation Act, 2007) / Appeal From Superior Court Dismissal of Certiorari Application to Court of Appeal; Hearing on Mootness and Publication Ban
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appeal was dismissed as moot because the certiorari ruling could not affect the appellant's convictions and sentence entered after guilty pleas; the publication ban was denied because the appellant failed to establish a serious risk to an important public interest under Sherman Estate, and the appellant may apply to re-open the appeal if he succeeds in the Superior Court of Justice.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed as moot; publication ban denied.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed without adjudication on the merits
- Application for publication ban dismissed
- If the appellant is successful in his appeal in the Superior Court of Justice, he may apply to re-open this appeal
02
Material facts
Parties
His Majesty the King
Respondent Counsel: Allyson RatsoyChristopher-Maik Bernier
Appellant Counsel: Christopher-Maik Bernier (self-represented)Amounts and remedies
- Time to Listing Years: 3.5
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal (provincial Offences Under Taxation Act, 2007) / Appeal From Superior Court Dismissal of Certiorari Application to Court of Appeal; Hearing on Mootness and Publication Ban
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether a guilty plea waives the right to challenge interlocutory decisions including a certiorari ruling
- 02
Whether the appeal is moot
- 03
Whether a publication ban should be ordered under the Sherman Estate test
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant sought to continue his appeal of the certiorari dismissal despite having pleaded guilty and requested a publication ban to be identified only by initials.
- Respondent
- The Crown argued the guilty plea waived the right to challenge interlocutory rulings citing R. v. Faulkner and R. v. Lopez-Restrepo and opposed the publication ban application.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
R. v. Faulkner, 2018 ONCA 174; R. v. Lopez-Restrepo, 2018 ONCA 887
A guilty plea can operate to waive the right to challenge interlocutory rulings and appellate review of those interlocutory matters after conviction.
- 02
Court of Appeal precedent and common law mootness doctrine (reasons of this court)
An appeal is moot and subject to dismissal where any decision would have no practical effect on the parties' rights or outcomes.
- 03
Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25
Publication bans and anonymization require the applicant to establish that court openness poses a serious risk to an important public interest under a proportionality analysis.
- 04
Court of Appeal practice and the reasons in this decision
If a collateral proceeding later alters the appellant's rights (for example, successful overturning of convictions), the appellant may apply to re-open a previously dismissed appeal.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appeal was dismissed as moot because the certiorari ruling could not affect the appellant's convictions and sentence entered after guilty pleas; the publication ban was denied because the appellant failed to establish a serious risk to an important public interest under Sherman Estate, and the appellant may apply to re-open the appeal if he succeeds in the Superior Court of Justice.
Obiter and limits
- Proceedings in the courts below proceeded without a request to initialize the appellant's name and those records are already public online.
- The appellant took over three and a half years to have the appeal listed, and subsequently pleaded guilty; if the Superior Court overturns convictions, re-opening this appeal may be appropriate.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed as moot; publication ban denied.
- Appeal dismissed without adjudication on the merits
- Application for publication ban dismissed
- If the appellant is successful in his appeal in the Superior Court of Justice, he may apply to re-open this appeal
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal for Ontario · 18 February 2026
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.
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Judgment· 18 February 2026
R. v. Bernier Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2026-02-18 Neutral citation 2026 ONCA 122 Docket numbers C70665 Judges Trotter, Gary T.; Dawe, Jonathan; Wilson, Darla A. Subject Criminal Decision Content
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Bernier, 2026 ONCA 122 DATE: 20260218 DOCKET: C70665 Trotter, Dawe and Wilson JJ.A.
BETWEEN His Majesty the King Respondent and Christopher-Maik Bernier Appellant Christopher-Maik Bernier, acting in person Allyson Ratsoy, for the respondent Heard: January 27, 2026 On appeal from the order of Justice Anne E. London-Weinstein of the Superior Court of Justice, dated March 21, 2022, with reasons reported at 2022 ONSC 1765, dismissing an application for certiorari from the order of Regional Senior Justice W. Vincent Clifford of the Ontario Court of Justice, dated October 1, 2021.
REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellant was charged with offences under the Taxation Act, 2007, S.O. 2007, c. 11, Sched. A. [2] In the course of those proceedings, the appellant brought a certiorari application, which was dismissed on March 21, 2022. The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal from that decision on May 25, 2022. The appeal took over three and a half years to be listed for hearing. [3] However, on September 28, 2022, the appellant entered pleas of guilty to the offences. He was sentenced on October 6, 2022. [4] The Crown takes the position that, by virtue of his guilty plea, the appellant has waived his right to challenge any interlocutory decisions and, as such, he is no longer entitled to appeal the certiorari ruling: see R. v. Faulkner, 2018 ONCA 174, 407 C.R.R. (2d) 59, at para. 98; R. v. Lopez-Restrepo, 2018 ONCA 887, 369 C.C.C. (3d) 56, at paras. 18-24. [5] At the hearing of the appeal, the panel was advised that the appellant has sought to set aside his convictions under the Taxation Act. An appeal from those convictions lies to the Superior Court of Justice. At the end of the hearing, we directed both parties to advise the panel of the status of the proceedings in the Superior Court of Justice. We have since been advised that the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal, signed on January 5, 2026, in the Superior Court of Justice in Ottawa. The appeal is to be
spoken-to on March 6, 2026. [6] The appeal before this court is presently moot. Any decision we might make with respect to the certiorari decision would have no impact on the appellant’s guilty pleas that resulted in his convictions and sentence. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal without adjudicating on the merits. If the appellant is successful with his late-breaking appeal in the Superior Court of Justice, it will be open to him to bring an application to re-open this appeal. [7] The appeal is dismissed. [8] The appellant also applies for an order for a publication ban on his full name at, and following, the hearing of this appeal. He wishes to be identified only by his initials. [9] Applying the principles in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25, [2021] 2 S.C.R. 75, the application is dismissed. The appellant has not established that court openness poses a serious risk to an important public interest. We take into account that the appellant was convicted and sentenced for provincial offences. The case proceeded in the courts below without a request by the appellant to initialize his name. We also note that the proceedings in the courts below, in which the appellant’s full name is referenced, are already in the public domain. The certiorari judgment that the appellant seeks to appeal and other rulings related to this case are available online, without initialization. [10] The application is dismissed. “Gary Trotter J.A.” “J. Dawe J.A.” “D.A. Wilson J.A.”
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.