Bringing an Application for a Stay of a Driving Prohibition Pending Appeal
The stay driving prohibition application
is an important step that has significant consequences. If successful, it
restores the Applicant’s driving privileges during the appeal period, after
they were lost due to the conviction and sentence at trial.
Under section 261 of the Criminal
Code, a judge of the court being appealed to may direct that a driving
prohibition be stayed pending final disposition of the appeal (or until
otherwise ordered by the court).
Section 261 of the Criminal Code does not set out any
statutory test for the granting of a license suspension stay, pending
appeal. It simply grants a broad discretion.
However, as a
matter of practice, the test that has developed is analogous to the related
powers found in s. 679 and s. 683(5), which deal with bail pending appeal and
with stays of fines, probation orders and other sentences pending appeal.
The statutory tests set out in these two provisions are that the “appeal is not
frivolous”, that relief from the underlying sentence is “in the interests of
justice”, and that maintaining the underlying sentence is “not necessary in the
public interest”.
To meet these three tests in
drinking and driving cases, the materials filed on a s. 261 Application must
satisfy the court that
·
the appeal has some arguable merit,
·
that it will cause hardship to the Applicant if
the stay is not granted, and
·
that the Applicant is not a danger to the
public.
See R. v. Won, 2012
ONCA 755 (CanLII)
An exemplary Application Record filed
for a s. 261 application would contain the following:
(i) A detailed Notice of Appeal that set out the grounds of
the appeal, avoiding the kind of automatic “boiler plate” that is sometimes
relied on. A well-written Notice of Appeal signals that counsel had
thought about the appeal and had given his client a considered opinion about
its potential merits.
Counsel should be prepared to
elaborate on the grounds in oral argument on the Application hearing date;
(ii) The
trial Judge’s Reasons should be included were possible. This allows the Court
to evaluate whether the proposed grounds in the Notice of Appeal are “not
frivolous”. In a case where the trial Judge’s reasons are not available,
within a reasonable time, an opinion letter from counsel would suffice.
This is often resorted to on bail applications pending appeal. What will
not suffice is a conclusory hearsay assertion, in the Applicant’s affidavit,
stating that he/she has been told that there are “arguable grounds of appeal”
or that “the appeal has merit”. This kind of assertion is sometimes
relied on and it simply cannot be evaluated by the Court;
(iii)
The Applicant’s driving record and criminal record, if any,
so that the Court will be able to assess whether the Applicant is a danger to
the public when driving. In this regard, a brief summary of the facts at
trial should also be included somewhere in the materials with particular
emphasis on whether there was any accident, any injuries, the breathalyzer
readings, and any evidence about the driving alleged that could impact on
public safety;
(iv) The
Applicant’s affidavit should set out when he had a driver’s license and when
his license was suspended, in order to evaluate any hardship that will result
if a stay is not granted. Applicants who have had their license suspended
for period of time, (for instance, those whose license has been suspended administratively
on arrest for three months should explain how they coped. The Affidavit
should also set out the kind of information about the Applicant’s character and
antecedents that is normally provided in a bail application, so that the Court
can assess whether he/she is likely to abide by the conditions imposed.
In this regard, it is routinely ordered as a condition of any s. 261 stay for
Applicants convicted of drinking and driving offences, that the Applicant only
drive with a zero blood-alcohol concentration and voluntarily submit to
testing, if stopped. The Applicant’s drinking habits are obviously
important in this regard;
(v) Finally,
the Court Reporter’s estimate as to when the transcripts will be available
should be included. This will help determine the earliest available date
for scheduling the appeal, and therefore, the duration of any s. 261 order.
See R. v. Won, 2012 ONCA 755 (CanLII)
Comments
Post a Comment