R. v. Wallace
The trial judge erred by refusing the appellant’s requests for an adjournment after the appellant discharged his counsel, thereby denying the appellant the opportunity to make full answer and defence; the conviction was therefore set aside and a new trial ordered.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C28901
- Parties
- Appellant: Ralph Wallace; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 28 May 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal on Appeal From Convictions
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; new trial ordered
- Legal Topics
- Adjournment, Discharge of Counsel, Right to Full Answer and Defence, New Trial
- 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
Ralph Wallace
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal on Appeal From Convictions
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing an adjournment after the appellant discharged his counsel
- 2 Whether the appellant was denied the opportunity to make full answer and defence
- 3 Whether the appellant’s discharge of counsel was a tactical ploy justifying refusal to adjourn
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge erred by refusing the appellant’s requests for an adjournment after the appellant discharged his counsel, thereby denying the appellant the opportunity to make full answer and defence; the conviction was therefore set aside and a new trial ordered.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; new trial ordered
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- Conviction set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Wallace Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 1999-05-28 Docket numbers C28901 Judges Brooke, John Watson; Krever, Horace; Rosenberg, Marc Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 19990528 DOCKET: C28901 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) –and– RALPH WALLACE (Appellant) BEFORE: BROOKE, KREVER and ROSENBERG JJ.A. COUNSEL: Neil R. Jones, for the appellant Alexander Alvaro, for the respondent HEARD: May 19, 1999 On appeal from the convictions on December 18, 1997 imposed by Hamilton J. ENDORSEMENT [1] We are of the view that this appeal must succeed and that there should be a new trial. We have reached this conclusion because, in our view, the trial judge should have acceded to the appellant’s request for an adjournment of the proceedings when, during the trial, the appellant discharged his counsel. [2] The appellant’s request for an adjournment appears to have been flatly denied. There was no finding by the trial judge that the appellant had discharged his counsel as a ploy on his part simply to delay the proceedings. [3] Significantly, the appellant renewed his request for an adjournment as the trial proceeded and really did not participate in the trial from the moment of the first request. He had been, and was then, in custody throughout the proceedings and obviously would have had difficulty in preparing to defend on the many counts upon which he was being tried. [4] In the circumstances, we are all satisfied that the appellant did not have the opportunity to make full answer and defence. Accordingly, the verdict cannot stand. [5] The appellant sought leave to file fresh evidence in support of his appeal as it related to the decision of the trial judge refusing to stay the trial proceedings. In the circumstances, we think it is unnecessary to deal with that application or that aspect of the appeal. The appellant, of course, is at liberty to proceed as he is advised at the new trial. [6] In the result then, the appeal is allowed, the conviction is set aside and a new trial is ordered. Signed: “John W. Brooke J.A.” “H. Krever J.A.” “M. Rosenberg J.A.”