R. v. Matthews
- Citation
- 2026 ONCA 167
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 5 March 2026
- Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Ontario Court of Justice Order Dismissing Appeal for Lack of Due Diligence (delay)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 5 March 2026
- Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Ontario Court of Justice Order Dismissing Appeal for Lack of Due Diligence (delay)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Seventeen years of delay with no steps taken to follow up on an allegedly ordered transcript or otherwise pursue the appeal is a failure to exercise due diligence and justifies dismissal of the appeal.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Omar Matthews
Appellant Counsel: acting in person; Michelle Psutka (duty counsel)His Majesty the King
Respondent Counsel: Jacob MillnsAmounts and remedies
- Delay Years: 17
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Ontario Court of Justice Order Dismissing Appeal for Lack of Due Diligence (delay)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appellant pursued his appeal with due diligence
- 02
Whether the court's failure to produce an ordered transcript excuses a 17‑year delay
- 03
Whether dismissal for delay was an appropriate remedy
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant says the delay was caused by the court's failure to produce a transcript he ordered when he filed his notice of appeal, making it impossible to pursue the appeal earlier.
- Respondent
- The respondent says there is no evidence the transcript was ordered; but even assuming a transcript was ordered, the appellant had the onus to pursue his appeal with due diligence and did not do so.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
R. v. Matthews, 2026 ONCA 167
A litigant who appeals has the onus to pursue the appeal with due diligence; prolonged inaction can justify dismissal.
- 02
R. v. Matthews, 2026 ONCA 167
Failure of the court to produce a transcript does not relieve an appellant of the duty to follow up and take steps to advance the appeal indefinitely.
- 03
R. v. Matthews, 2026 ONCA 167
Excessive delay (here 17 years) without steps to pursue an appeal constitutes lack of due diligence supporting dismissal.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Seventeen years of delay with no steps taken to follow up on an allegedly ordered transcript or otherwise pursue the appeal is a failure to exercise due diligence and justifies dismissal of the appeal.
Obiter and limits
- The court accepted for purposes of the appeal that a transcript may have been ordered but noted that acceptance did not excuse the appellant's prolonged inaction.
- The court observed the capable assistance of duty counsel at the hearing but found no error in the lower judge's conclusion.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed.
- Appeal dismissed.
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal for Ontario · 5 March 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· 5 March 2026
R. v. Matthews Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2026-03-05 Neutral citation 2026 ONCA 167 Docket numbers COA-26-CR-0118 Judges Fairburn, J. Michal; Paciocco, David M.; Wilson, Darla A. Subject Criminal Decision Content
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Matthews, 2026 ONCA 167 DATE: 20260305 DOCKET: COA-26-CR-0118 Fairburn A.C.J.O., Paciocco and Wilson JJ.A.
BETWEEN His Majesty the King Respondent and Omar Matthews Appellant Omar Matthews, acting in person Michelle Psutka, appearing as duty counsel Jacob Millns, for the respondent Heard and rendered orally: March 3, 2026 On appeal from the order of Justice Marquis S.V. Felix of the Ontario Court of Justice, dated January 6, 2025, dismissing an appeal from the convictions entered on October 4, 2007, by Justice of the Peace Odida Quamina of the Ontario Court of Justice.
REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellant was convicted in 2007 of various offences under the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8. He appealed on October 15, 2007. It would appear he did nothing to pursue his appeal until he received a notice of a purge hearing dated November 1, 2024. [2] Before the Ontario Court of Justice judge, the appellant claimed that the delay was occasioned by the court that failed to provide the transcript he ordered at the time he filed his notice of appeal. One thing is certain, the transcript was not produced and so many years later cannot be produced. [3] The respondent argues that there is no evidence that the transcript was ordered. For purposes of this appeal, we are prepared to accept that the transcript was ordered. Even so, it remains the appellant’s onus to pursue his appeal with due diligence. [4] The Ontario Court of Justice judge was entitled to arrive at the conclusion that the appeal was not pursued with due diligence. He dismissed the appeal on that basis. This court granted leave to appeal from that decision on an earlier date. [5] In our view, 17 years of delay without any steps to follow up on the transcript does not constitute due diligence. Despite Ms. Psutka’s very capable assistance today, we see no error in the appeal judge’s conclusion. [6] As a result, the appeal is dismissed. “Fairburn A.C.J.O.” “David M. Paciocco 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.