Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Page: 2
[1]
officer on July 27, 2013, when he shot and killed Sammy Yatim. After a trial by
judge and jury, he was acquitted of second degree murder but convicted of
attempted murder. On July 28, 2016, he was sentenced to six years in the
penitentiary. He brings this application for release from custody pending the
determination of his appeal from conviction and sentence, pursuant to s. 679(3)
of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. 0-46.
[2]
[3]
(a)
(b)
(c)
The Crown opposes the application on two grounds. First, it contends that
the appeal is frivolous. Second, it submits that detention in this serious case is
required in the public interest.
ANALYSIS
Page: 3
[4]
In my view, this application turns on the third ground, namely, whether the
frivolous appeal, within the meaning of s. 679(3)(a), is one that does not raise
arguable issues: R. v. Manasseri, 2013 ONCA 647, 312 C.C.C. (3d) 132, at para.
38.
[6]
I will deal with the merits of the appeal more fully below. It is sufficient at
this stage to say that the grounds of appeal that have been raised are stronger
than merely not being frivolous.
S. 679(3)fb)
[7]
The Crown concedes that there is no real risk that the Appellant will not
The public interest criterion has two components: public safety and public
Page: 4
Public Safety
[101
Public safety is concerned with the risk that the Appellant, if released,
the administration of justice requires the court to balance the conflicting principles
of reviewability and enforceability. That is, the public interest criterion requires a
judicial assessment of the need to review the conviction (reviewability) and the
need to respect the general rule of immediate enforceability of judgments
(enforceability): Farinacci, at para. 43.
[12]
the offence for which the Appellant has been convicted and assess the merits of
the appeal.
[13]
It must be remembered that this courts role in assessing the merits is not
to decide the appeal. My role is limited to assessing whether the merits of appeal
Page: 5
are sufficiently strong to shift the balance in favour of release. On my
assessment, the merits of the appeal shift the balance in favour of reviewability.
Public confidence in the administration of justice requires that judgments be
reviewed and that errors, if any, be corrected: see Farinacci, at para. 43.
[15]
consideration that, to the best understanding of both parties, there has never
been a case such as this. The Appellant fired nine shots. The evidence shows
that Mr. Yatim died as a result of one of the first three shots. The second degree
murder charge related to the first three shots. The Appellant was acquitted of that
charge. That is, the jury found that the killing of Mr. Yatim was justified. However,
the Appellant was convicted of attempted murder in respect of the second volley
of shots (the other six). There is strength to the Appellants grounds of appeal
related to whether the indictment improperly charged a single transaction as two
counts and whether the verdicts are inconsistent. Having found this of sufficient
weight, I need not express a view on the strength of the other main category of
grounds of appeal.
[16]
I have also taken into consideration the Appellants assurances that he will
perfect his appeal and set it down for hearing in a timely fashion. To assist with
this, I have asked Justice Doherty to case manage this appeal and he has
agreed.
Page: 6
[17]
2016, and direct that the parties attend before Justice Doherty before that date to
advise on the status of the appeal. They may address a variation in the surrender
date during that attendance.
[18]
By imposing this early surrender date, the public will see that meaningful
steps have been taken to ensure that the appeal is heard as expeditiously as
possible. This, too, is a factor going to the enforceability component of the public
confidence in the administration of justice criterion.
CONCLUSION
[19]
The Appellant has been on a release order, without incident, since August
20, 2013. Apart from this application, each time the issue of bail has been before
the courts, including after the Appellants conviction for attempted murder, the
Crown has consented to bail being granted.
[20]
risk to the public as there is no risk that he would commit further offences. For
the reasons given, despite the seriousness of the offence for which the Appellant
stands convicted, in my view, fully informed members of the community will
objectively understand and accept that it is not contrary to the public interest that
he be released.
DISPOSITION
Page: 7
[21]
For these reasons, the application is granted. I have addressed the matter
of the surrender date. I am in the courthouse and available to sign the release
order. If the parties are unable to resolve the matter of the other conditions of
release, I may be spoken to.
LL