R. v. Hicks
Assuming jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise it and abated the appeal because the matter involved a trivial fine with no practical consequence for the estate, was not evasive of review given the volume of similar tickets, and implicated province-wide questions about a regulation-prescribed form that could...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2016 ONCA 291
- Parties
- Appellant: Ryan Hicks; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen ex rel. The Corporation of the City of London
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 21 April 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal Under the Provincial Offences Act / Motion for Directions After Appellant's Death; Leave to Appeal Previously Granted
- Outcome
- Appeal abated; judgment below stayed; substitution denied
- Legal Topics
- Abatement, Jurisdiction to Substitute Personal Representative, Mootness, Interpretation of Prescribed Regulatory Form, Stay of Proceedings
- 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
Ryan Hicks
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen ex rel. The Corporation of the City of London
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Under the Provincial Offences Act / Motion for Directions After Appellant's Death; Leave to Appeal Previously Granted
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to continue a criminal appeal after the death of the appellant
- 2 Whether a personal representative or other person should be substituted as appellant
- 3 Whether the appeal should be abated as moot
Ratio Decidendi
Assuming jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise it and abated the appeal because the matter involved a trivial fine with no practical consequence for the estate, was not evasive of review given the volume of similar tickets, and implicated province-wide questions about a regulation-prescribed form that could not be properly resolved without a fuller factual record; therefore substitution was denied, the appeal was abated and the judgment below stayed.
Court Disposition
Appeal abated; judgment below stayed; substitution denied
Orders
- Appeal abated
- Judgment below stayed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Hicks Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2016-04-21 Neutral citation 2016 ONCA 291 Docket numbers C59588, M45895 Judges Strathy, George R.; Gillese, Eileen E.; Pardu, Gladys I. Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Hicks, 2016 ONCA 291 DATE: 20160421 DOCKET: M45895 (C59588) Strathy C.J.O., Gillese and Pardu JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen ex rel. The Corporation of the City of London Respondent and Ryan Hicks Appellant Jennifer L. Hunter, for the appellant Kelly Nenniger, for the respondent Heard: April 19, 2016 Motion for directions. ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant unfortunately died after leave to appeal was granted. Counsel moves for an order substituting a personal representative or other person as appellant. The municipal prosecutor seeks to abate the appeal, submitting that the court has no jurisdiction to continue a proceeding that has been rendered moot. [2] The jurisdiction to continue an appeal in a criminal matter, after the death of the appellant, should be exercised sparingly and only where it is in the interests of justice do so: R. v. Smith 2004 SCC 14 at para. 20. That observation has even greater force in a prosecution under the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33. [3] Assuming, without deciding, that we have jurisdiction, we decline to exercise it, for three reasons. First, the appeal concerns a traffic ticket carrying a fine of $95. The appeal has no practical consequences for the estate of the deceased. Second, the issue is not evasive of judicial review, given the vast number of traffic tickets issued annually in the province. Third, and most important, this appeal involves the interpretation of a form prescribed by regulation. A decision in this matter would have province-wide implications for the validity of convictions under Part I of the POA. Without a better factual record it would not be in the interests of justice to hear the appeal. [4] The appeal is therefore abated and the judgment below is stayed. [5] We express the court’s appreciation for the assistance of counsel for the appellant, who was initially retained as amicus on the leave motion. “G.R. Strathy C.J.O.” “E.E. Gillese J.A.” “G. Pardu J.A.”