R. v. Braut
- Citation
- 2004 BCCA 394
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- British Columbia Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 15 July 2004
- Posture
- Criminal Review Application / Application Under S.680(1) Criminal Code for Review of Order Dismissing Stay Application
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- British Columbia Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 15 July 2004
- Posture
- Criminal Review Application / Application Under S.680(1) Criminal Code for Review of Order Dismissing Stay Application
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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. PierreRegina
Respondent Counsel: V. ToselliAmounts and remedies
- Number of Driving Prohibition Orders at Issue: 2
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Review Application / Application Under S.680(1) Criminal Code for Review of Order Dismissing Stay Application
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the s.680(1) review threshold is met (could the court possibly conclude the stay should have been allowed)
- 02
Whether the judge who made the order may properly express an opinion on that threshold
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
Legal principles
- 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.
- 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.
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Judgment· 15 July 2004
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"
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.