Judgment of the Court
FAUTEUx J.:-Thomas William Hind applies for leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, which dismissed his application for an extension of time to appeal to that Court from a sentence of ten years' imprisonment, imposed upon him by His Honour Magistrate Kurata, upon a plea of guilty to a charge of robbery with violence.
In its reasons for judgment, the Court of Appeal relates the circumstances of this bank robbery, refers to the criminal record of the applicant and concludes that, having regard to his previous convictions and the nature of the offence of which he was convicted, there was no merit in the application. The Court also notes that the applicant had waived all rights of appeal. In fact, on the day he was sentenced, he gave a written notice to this effect, pursuant to s. 49(3) of the Penitentiary Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 206, which provides, inter alia, that, upon such a notice, the time limited for appeal shall be deemed to have expired. With respect to this waiver, the circumstances attending its signature and the position taken by applicant in this regard, the Court of Appeal makes these observations:
The accused had signed a waiver while imprisoned at the Don Gaol and in his application for extension of time for appealing he stated that he had signed the waiver 'without being informed of and without realizing I was signing away my rights. The signing of the waiver took place late at night and I was caught unawares (sic) of what I was doing.' Mr. G. A. Taggart (an official of the Court of Appeal) communicated with the authorities at the Don Gaol and was advised that the accused had had his rights fully explained to him and that the waiver was signed not late at night but before six o'clock in the afternoon.
The grounds upon which the applicant is seeking leave to appeal to this Court are formulated as follows:
(1) Had the Court of Appeal jurisdiction to enter upon the hearing of the application in the absence of the accused, who was in custody, not represented by counsel, had submitted no written argument, had requested permission to argue. his application in person, and was not notified of the date of the hearing of the application?
(2) Had the Court of Appeal jurisdiction to adjudicate the question of fact surrounding the signing by the Applicant of a waiver of his right to appeal in the absence of legally admissible evidence regarding this issue?
R.C.S.
The criminal record of the applicant and the nature of the crime for which he was convicted may or may not justify, as a proper one, the sentence imposed upon him. This question is not before us and is not, furthermore, susceptible, in law, to be entertained by this Court: Goldhar v. The
Queen'. We are here concerned with an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of a Court of Appeal refusing an extension of time for appealing to that Court from a sentence.
Having considered the grounds raised in support of the application and the material, in the record, which is relevant to these grounds, I would be disposed to grant leave to appeal had this Court jurisdiction to do so, having regard to the nature of the judgment a quo. It is obvious that this
Court has no jurisdiction to exercise a jurisdiction, over a
Court of Appeal, similar to that which the High Court exercises over inferior tribunals, in certiorari proceedings. It is also clear that this Court can only deal with a judgment of a Court of Appeal, by way of appeal, if jurisdiction to do so can be found in some statutory enactment. Welch v. The
King ; Okalta Oils Limited v. The Minister of National
Revenue'; Chagnon v. Normand'; William Cully v. Fran- Cois alias Francis Ferdais . With respect to a judgment of the nature of the judgment a quo, such a jurisdiction cannot be found either in the Criminal Code or in s. 41 of the
Supreme Court Act. The provisions of s. 597(1) of the
Criminal Code, upon which the application purports to be made, have particularly no application in the matter. In
Paul v. The Queen , this Court, having to consider whether it had jurisdiction to entertain an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of a Court of Appeal refusing leave to appeal in a criminal matter, reached the view that it had none. A fortiori, in my opinion, must a like view obtain in the case of an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of a Court of Appeal refusing an extension of time for appealing in a criminal matter and, more particularly so,