Citation: R. v. Carson, 2023 NSCA 6
Date: 20230130
Docket: CAC 511591
Registry: Halifax
Between:
Glen Carson
Appellant
v.
His Majesty the King
Respondent
| Judges: |
Beveridge, Farrar and Derrick JJ.A. |
| Appeal Heard: |
January 30, 2023, in Halifax, Nova Scotia |
| Written Release |
January 30, 2023 |
| Held: |
Leave to appeal denied per reasons of the Court |
| Counsel: |
Ian Hutchison, for the appellant Erica Koresawa, for the respondent |
By the Court (orally):
[1] We are of the unanimous view that leave to appeal should be denied.
[2] The police charged the respondent with sexual assault alleged to have occurred between October 1, 2017 and May 31, 2018. The complainant alleged her employer, the appellant, had intentionally brushed his hand across her buttocks on multiple occasions and twice elbowed her breast. The Crown proceeded summarily.
[3] The complainant’s evidence was corroborated by a fellow employee who said he witnessed the appellant elbowing the complainant in the breast, followed by a snappy or sarcastic remark. The appellant gave a voluntary statement to the police which was not tendered as part of the Crown’s case. The appellant did not testify, but called seven witnesses in his defence.
[4] The trial judge convicted. Pursuant to a joint recommendation, the judge imposed four months’ imprisonment, to be served by way of a conditional sentence order, followed by six months’ probation, and made various ancillary orders.
[5] Justice Diane Rowe, sitting as the Summary Conviction Appeal Court, heard the appellant’s as of right appeal. Before that court, the appellant argued the trial judge erred: by making findings of fact not supported by the evidence; by failing to direct himself or apply the proper legal principles when assessing the credibility and reliability of the complainant; misapprehending the evidence; and not providing sufficient reasons to permit meaningful appellate review.
[6] The SCAC judge delivered an oral decision on November 19, 2021(now reported as 2021 NSSC 370). After the SCAC judge set out the appropriate standard of review, she addressed and rejected each argument advanced by the appellant.
[7] This appeal is brought pursuant to s. 839 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. It is restricted to a question of law alone and requires leave of the Court.
[8] In deciding whether leave should be granted, we are to consider the significance of the legal issues engaged by the proposed grounds of appeal to the general administration of criminal justice, their merits and the degree of deprivation of liberty the appellant faces (see: R. v. R.E.M., 2011 NSCA 8; R. v. MacNeil, 2009 NSCA 46; R. v. Pottie, 2013 NSCA 68; R. v. MacDonald, 2013 NSCA 45;and R. v. Stanton, 2021 NSCA 57).
[9] The appellant’s proposed grounds of appeal to this Court are similar to those advanced to the SCAC, with some minor retooling. They advance no legal issues important to the administration of justice that need resolution. The record demonstrates no clear legal error, nor significant deprivation of liberty for the appellant.
[10] Despite Mr. Hutchison’s efforts, having reviewed the whole of the record, considered counsels’ submissions, and the factors relevant to whether leave should be granted, we are not satisfied that leave to appeal should be granted.
[11] Leave to appeal is denied.
Beveridge J.A.
Farrar J.A.
Derrick J.A.