Frederick v. The Queen, [1966] SCR 257

Supreme Court of Canada

Frederick v. The Queen, [1966] S.C.R. 257

Date: 1966-02-03

Gerard Frederick (Plaintiff) Appellant;

and

Her Majesty The Queen (Defendant) Respondent.

1966: February 3.

Present: Taschereau C.J. and Cartwright, Fauteux, Martland and Judson JJ.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.

Criminal law—Accused in custody—Notice of appeal requesting that counsel be appointed by Court—Request refused—Accused notified only after hearing of appeal.

The appellant, who was in custody, completed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal on a form prescribed by the rules whereby he requested that his case be presented “through counsel to be assigned by the Court”. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal in his absence and without assigning counsel. He was not notified of the date set for the hearing. The case came before the Court of Appeal on May 7. He was advised by a letter dated May 28 that his appeal had been dismissed and by a further letter dated June 24 that his request for counsel had been refused. He appealed to this Court.

[Page 258]

Held: The appeal should be allowed and the record should be referred back to the Court of Appeal for a hearing in accordance with the Criminal Code.

The failure to notify the appellant that no counsel had been appointed by the Court and the failure to notify him of the date of the hearing of the appeal and to give him an opportunity to present his case either in writing or in person was fatal to the validity of the order of the Court of Appeal.

Droit criminel—Accusé sous détention—Avis d’appel demandant qu’un avocat soit nommé par la Cour—Demande refusée—Accusé notifié seulement après l’audition de Vappel.

L’appelant, qui était sous détention, a complété un avis d’appel à la Cour d’Appel sur une formule prescrite par les règles dans laquelle il demandait que sa cause soit présentée par l’entremise d’un avocat assigné par la Cour. La Cour d’Appel a rejeté l’appel en son absence et sans lui avoir assigné un avocat. Il n’a pas été notifié de la date fixée pour l’audition. La cause fut entendue par la Cour d’Appel le 7 mai. Il fut notifié par une lettre en date du 28 mai que son appel avait été rejeté et par un autre lettre en date du 24 juin que sa demande pour la nomination d’un avocat avait été refusée. Il en appela devant cette Cour.

Arrêt: L’appel doit être maintenu et le dossier renvoyé à la Cour d’Appel pour une audition conformément au Code criminel.

Le défaut de notifier l’appelant qu’aucun avocat n’avait été nommé par la Cour et le défaut de le notifier de la date de l’audition de l’appel et de lui donner l’occasion de présenter sa cause, soit par écrit, soit en personne, avait été fatal à la validité de l’ordonnance rendue par la Cour d’Appel.

APPEL d’un jugement de la Cour d’Appel de l’Ontario. Appel maintenu.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Appeal allowed.

Brian Crane, for the appellant.

R.A. Cormack, Q.C., for the respondent.

The judgment of the Court was delivered by

The CHIEF JUSTICE:—In this case, the appellant, who is in custody, completed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario on Form B prescribed in the Rules respecting Criminal Proceedings which came into force in Ontario on March 1, 1965.

[Page 259]

This form reads in part as follows:

I desire to present my case and argument whether it be for leave to appeal or by way of appeal where leave is not necessary⁵.

(a) in writing

(b) in person

(c) through counsel to be assigned by the court.

Marginal note (⁵) reads as follows:

(⁵) Stroke out two of (a), (b) or (c).

The appellant struck out items (a) and (b).

The notice was dated April 14, 1965.

The appellant received no notice of the date set for the hearing of his appeal.

On May 7, 1965, the Court of Appeal made an order dismissing his appeal. The appellant was not present and no counsel had been assigned to present the appeal.

Some time in May the appellant was informed by the Governor of the jail that his appeal had been dismissed. By letter of May 28, 1965, from the Registrar of the Court of Appeal, he was sent a copy of the order of the Court of Appeal made on May 7, 1965. By letter dated June 24, 1965, from the Registrar, he was advised that his request to have his appeal argued through counsel to be assigned by the Court had been refused.

It is obvious that the appellant having completed his notice of appeal in the manner set out above would assume until he was advised to the contrary that counsel would be assigned to present his appeal. The failure to notify the appellant that no counsel was appointed by the Court and the failure to notify him of the date of the hearing of the appeal and to give him an opportunity to present his case either in writing or in person is fatal to the validity of the order of the Court of Appeal.

The Appeal is allowed, the order of the Court of Appeal of May 7, 1965, is set aside and it is directed that the record be returned to that Court to hear and determine the application of the appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code.

Appeal allowed.

Solicitors for the appellant: Gowling, MacTavish, Osborne & Henderson, Ottawa.

Solicitor for the respondent: W.C. Bowman, Toronto.