R v Smithen-Davis, 2020 ONCA 759
The Issue
Can an appeal be re-opened following submissions and completion of argument but before the appellate court has rendered judgement? Does the principle of functus officio prohibit such an application? If re-opening is permitted, what is the scope of the jurisdiction to permit this?
The Answer
The parties and the court all agreed that the court has jurisdiction to permit re-opening of an appeal. However, there was disagreement about the scope of the court’s jurisdiction:
…whether it extends to appeals heard and decided on the merits, and if it does, when that jurisdiction ends. Upon delivery of reasons for the decision? Or only when the formal order recording the disposition is entered? [Para 28].
The court held it is not functus officio until formal judgement has been drawn up and entered [para 40]: see R v Adams, [1995] 4 SCR 707 at para 29.
The interests of justice do not, in this case, prohibit the re-opening:
To succeed in quashing the respondent's application to re-open the appeal, the Crown must be able to establish on the record, as it currently exists, that the application to re-open has no reasonable prospect of success. On this issue, the Crown fails, as it did in advancing a similar argument in R. v. Forcillo, 2018 ONCA 402, 141 O.R. (3d) 752, leave to appeal refused, [2018] S.C.C.A. No. 258. [Para 68].
The Fine Print
Two aspects of the court’s ruling offer guidance for future cases. First, the court offered the following considerations on deciding whether to permit re-opening:
Among the relevant factors a court might consider in deciding whether to permit re-opening of an appeal previously argued and decided on the merits are:
i. the principle of finality;
ii. the interests of justice including finality and the risk of a miscarriage of justice;
iii. whether the applicant has established a clear and compelling case to justify a re-opening;
iv. whether, in hearing and deciding the appeal on the merits, the court overlooked or misapprehended the evidence or an argument advanced by counsel; and
v. whether the error alleged concerns a significant aspect of the case. [Para 36]
Second, in relation to the interest of justice test the court noted:
The re-opening decision requires consideration of all the circumstances. Two competing principles are at work. The need for finality in criminal litigation favours a restrictive approach. Prevention of potential miscarriages of justice, on the other hand, supports a more expansive approach: Hummel, at para. 17. The “interests of justice” includes both the interest of the accused in having their guilt adjudicated on the basis of all the available evidence, and that of the state in the integrity of the criminal justice process including its finality and order: R. v. M. (P.S.) (1992), 77 C.C.C. (3d) 402 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 411; R. v. Manasseri, 2016 ONCA 703, 132 O.R. (3d) 401 at para. 200, leave to appeal refused, [2016] S.C.C.A. No. 513. [Para 56]