Canada Judgment

British Columbia Court of Appeal

R. v. Braut

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Because the Chief Justice who made the original order could not properly assess whether the statutory threshold for review was met, he directed that the 15 June 2004 order be reviewed by a division of the court applying the Gill standard.

Court disposition

Order of 15 June 2004 directed to be reviewed by a division of the court

Orders

  • Review of the order pronounced on 15 June 2004 by a division of the Court of Appeal

02

Material facts

Parties

Ivan John Braut

Appellant Counsel: D. St. Pierre

Regina

Respondent Counsel: V. Toselli

Amounts and remedies

  • Number of Driving Prohibition Orders at Issue: 2

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Review Application / Application Under S.680(1) Criminal Code for Review of Order Dismissing Stay Application

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The appellant applied under s.680(1) for review of the Chief Justice's 15 June 2004 order dismissing his application to stay two driving prohibition orders and sought a division review of that order.
Respondent
The Crown opposed interference with the Chief Justice's order and maintained the threshold for review under s.680(1) had not been met.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    R. v. Gill, 2001 BCCA 569 ¶4

    The proper test on a s.680(1) application is whether, applying the law, a court could possibly conclude the application for a stay should have been allowed.

  2. 02

    Principle stated by Chief Justice Finch in R. v. Braut, 2004 BCCA 394

    A judge who made the impugned order should not express an opinion on whether the threshold for review has been met; that determination should be made by a division of the court.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Because the Chief Justice who made the original order could not properly assess whether the statutory threshold for review was met, he directed that the 15 June 2004 order be reviewed by a division of the court applying the Gill standard.

Obiter and limits

  • Applications under s.680 raise an issue as to the merits of the proposed review and require assessment of whether the court could possibly conclude the stay should have been allowed.

Court disposition

Order of 15 June 2004 directed to be reviewed by a division of the court

  • Review of the order pronounced on 15 June 2004 by a division of the Court of Appeal

Source and reliance status

British Columbia Court of Appeal · 15 July 2004

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.

Source document

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Judgment· 15 July 2004

2004 BCCA 394

2004 BCCA 394 R. v. Braut

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Braut, 2004 BCCA 394 Date: 20040715 Docket: CA31957; CA31958 Between: Regina Respondent And Ivan John Braut Appellant Before: The Honourable Chief Justice Finch (In Chambers) D. St. Pierre Counsel for the Appellant V. Toselli Counsel for the Respondent Written Submissions of the Appellant filed: Written Submissions of the Respondent Crown filed: June 22, 2004 June 29, 2004 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, British Columbia July 15, 2004 Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Chief Justice Finch: [1] Mr. Braut applies under Section 680(1) of the Criminal Code for a direction that my order of 15 June 2004 be reviewed by a division of the court. The order of 15 June dismissed the appellant's application to stay two orders prohibiting him from driving a motor vehicle. [2] Applications under s.680 raise an issue as to the merits of the proposed review. The question is whether the court, applying the law, could possibly conclude that the application for a stay should have been allowed: see R. v. Gill, 2001 BCCA 569 ¶4, and authorities there cited. [3] As I made the order sought to be reviewed, it would be inappropriate for me to express any opinion on whether that threshold has been met. [4] I therefore direct a review of the order I pronounced on 15 June 2004. "The Honourable Chief Justice Finch"

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

R. v. Gill, 2001 BCCA 569 ¶4

Case cited

Criminal Code s.680(1)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.