Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Criminal law and penal law - Appeals - Evidence - Sentencing - Delay in issuing of trial judge’s written reasons - Whether the presumption of regularity has application where reasons for judgment are inordinately delayed and whether such reasons impugn the integrity of the appellate process and preclude the right to meaningful appellate review, and further whether such reasons ought to be considered on appeal - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the presumption of regularity has application in circumstances where reasons for judgment are inordinately delayed and that such reasons may be considered on appeal.

On November 21, 2000, Dougald Miller was the victim of a serious assault in the apartment building where he was the resident manager. The same day, his car and possessions from his apartment and car went missing. Between six and seven a.m. that day, two residents of the building noticed a man with a bicycle sleeping in the hallway on the second floor. One of them had three opportunities to observe the sleeping man. At about 10:30 a.m., Miller’s beaten body was discovered at the bottom of the stairs on the main floor of the building.

The trial judge found Teskey guilty on the counts of break and enter, aggravated assault and possession of stolen property, but entered a conditional stay with respect to the possession of stolen property. The trial judge had reserved judgment on October 19, 2001 and gave the oral judgment on February 22, 2002. Before the sentencing and before the written reasons were issued, Teskey filed a Notice of Appeal. When the parties appeared to argue the appeal on January 7, 2003, the panel of the Court of Appeal adjourned the matter sine die, issuing its reasons on January 23, 2003 directing the trial judge to proceed to sentencing “with all deliberate speed”. On January 29, 2003, the trial judge issued written reasons. On February 28, 2005, Teskey was sentenced and found to be a dangerous offender.

On appeal, the majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Berger J.A. dissented on a point of law when he found that the significantly delayed reasons for judgment should not be considered on appeal. He found that the reasons given at the time of the finding of guilt was entered did not meet the test in R. v. Sheppard [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869 and that, given the tenuous nature of the Crown’s circumstantial case, he would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.