In his March 3, 2015 decision in R. v. Ebagua, Justice Huscroft of the Ontario
Court of Appeal held that there is no right to seek a "stay of
sentence" from the Court of Appeal pending a conviction appeal
due to an allegation that the sentencing judge would be biased. His
decision was short but instructive:
The applicant was found guilty of trafficking marijuana
following a trial before Justice L.M. Baldwin of the Ontario Court
of Justice. ...
The applicant requests that the Court stay the sentencing on
the basis that he has a reasonable apprehension that Baldwin J. is
biased. He submits that a long pattern of biased behavior by the
judge led to his conviction, which he says is manifestly
unreasonable, and that he will not be given a fair sentence by
Baldwin J. He has filed an appeal of his conviction and requests
that he be sentenced only if his appeal is dismissed.
Alternatively, he requests that he be sentenced by a different
The applicant provided the court with no authority to support
either his stay request or the court's jurisdiction. He
submitted that he is entitled to seek relief from this court for a
breach of s. 7 of the Charter pursuant to s 24 and that it was
convenient to do so by motion at this stage, given that he has
filed his conviction appeal. The Crown submitted that the court is
a statutory court whose powers under s. 686 of the Code provide
jurisdiction to grant remedial relief on the hearing of an appeal
against conviction or sentence. He submits there is no precedent
for the applicant's request for a stay prior to
In my view there is no basis for this court to intervene prior
to sentencing by the trial judge in this case. The proper course is
for the applicant to raise his bias allegation with the trial judge
prior to sentencing. He is then free to appeal both sentence and
conviction to this court should he wish to do so.
The motion is dismissed.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
It's not often that our little blog intersects with such titanic struggles as the U.S. presidential race – and by using the term "titanic" I certainly don't mean to suggest that anything disastrous is in the future.
J.J. v. C.C., is an interesting case in which the court held that an automotive garage owes a duty to minor children to secure the vehicles on the premises by locking the cars and safely storing the car keys...
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).