Date: 20010222
Docket: A-612-99
2001 FCA 35
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
WILLIAM R.,
Appellant,
AND:
THE HONOURABLE A. ANNE McLELLAN, MINISTER OF JUSTICE
AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
Respondent,
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, Thursday, February 22, 2001
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, Thursday, February 22, 2001
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
Date: 20010222
Docket: A-612-99
2001 FCA 35
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
WILLIAM R.,
Appellant,
AND:
THE HONOURABLE A. ANNE McLELLAN, MINISTER OF JUSTICE
AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
Respondent,
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario
on Thursday, February 22, 2001)
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
We are of the view that this appeal cannot succeed.
Basically, the appellant complains that the Minister of Justice to whom he had made an application for mercy under section 690 of the Criminal Code did not follow the internal procedure established to assess these applications. This procedure is found in a pamphlet and entails the following four steps:
There are four steps in the review process:
· initial assessment
· investigation
· preparation of an investigation brief
· decision by the Minister
The initial step of this review process involves determining whether there is a basis for an investigation.
The appellant submitted to the Minister as a basis for his application that he was wrongfully convicted as a result of a failure by the Crown to disclose to him a medical report that could have had a determinative effect on the issue of guilt. According to the information that he received from the Department of Justice, he expected an answer on the initial assessment within 60 days of his application. He in fact obtained the Minister's answer nearly 28 months later. He infers from this lapse of time that the Minister proceeded beyond the initial assessment to an investigation and a final decision. In so doing, the Minister, he claims, deprived him of his opportunity to make additional submissions at the investigative stage.
We have not been convinced that the Minister went beyond the initial assessment stage.
The evidence before the Minister establishes that the Minister had grounds to believe that the appellant knew of the existence of the medical record of the complainant that he says was not disclosed to him and was even suppressed from the process; that he knew of its existence before the trial started and that he knew of its contents before he appealed against his conviction. In view of that evidence, the Minister concluded that there was no basis to the section 690 application and that there was no need to go further.
A legal officer employed by the Government of Canada filed an affidavit to the effect that the Justice Department did go beyond the initial assessment and did not conduct a further investigation or complete an investigation summary in respect of the appellant's application. This evidence is uncontradicted and is, in itself, sufficient to dispose of the appellant's ground of appeal.
In dismissing the appeal from the judgment of the motions judge, we ought not to be taken as endorsing the judge's statement that, in this proceeding, section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was engaged.
The appeal will be dismissed with costs.
"Gilles Létourneau"
J.A.
Email this Content