Case information
Conduct a refined search of the Supreme Court of Canada database to obtain details on the status of a matter before the Court.
32806
Emmanuil Royz v. Her Majesty the Queen
(Ontario) (Criminal) (As of Right)
(Publication ban in case)
Docket
Judgments on applications for leave to appeal are rendered by the Court, but are not necessarily unanimous.
| Date | Proceeding | Filed By (if applicable) |
|---|---|---|
| 2009-05-21 | Appeal closed | |
| 2009-05-19 | Formal judgment sent to the registrar of the court of appeal and all parties | |
| 2009-05-19 | Judgment on appeal and notice of deposit of judgment sent to all parties | |
| 2009-04-15 | Correspondence (sent by the Court) to, Mr. Royz (by e-mail) with cc. to all parties | |
| 2009-04-09 | Transcript received, (22 pages) | |
| 2009-03-26 | Correspondence received from, Mr. Royz (by e-mail); re: hearing | Emmanuil Royz |
| 2009-03-26 | Appeal closed | |
| 2009-03-25 |
Judgment on the appeal rendered, Bi LeB De Abe Cha Ro Cro, The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C45688, 2008 ONCA 584, dated August 14, 2008, was heard this day and the following judgment was delivered orally: [1] Binnie J. — The appellant, convicted of extortion after a short trial, appeals as of right based on a dissent in the Ontario Court of Appeal related to the adequacy of the trial judge’s review of the evidence in his charge to the jury. [2] At issue is the application to particular facts of the general principle governing jury instructions set out in Azoulay v. The Queen, [1952] 2 S.C.R. 495, at pp. 497-98: The rule which has been laid down, and consistently followed is that in a jury trial the presiding judge must, except in rare cases where it would be needless to do so, review the substantial parts of the evidence, and give the jury the theory of the defence, so that they may appreciate the value and effect of that evidence, and how the law is to be applied to the facts as they find them. To this should be added what was said in R. v. Jacquard, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 314, by Chief Justice Lamer: “I cannot emphasize enough that the role of a trial judge in charging the jury is to decant and simplify” (para. 13). Brevity is the soul of a jury charge that actually helps the jurors to focus on their job provided its members are given an adequate understanding of the relationship between the essential elements of the evidence and the issues they are required to resolve. [3] The appellant argues that “[e]vidence critical to the defence case was not reviewed and the jurors were never told how the evidence that was referred to could support a defence to the charge of extortion” (Appellant Factum, at para. 39). We do not agree. In applying the Azoulay principle to the circumstances of a particular trial, a trial judge must necessarily be vested with considerable latitude to determine how much or how little of the evidence is to be reviewed in relation to the elements of the charge. Here the evidence took less than a day and a half. The entire trial took place over 3½ consecutive days including jury addresses, instructions, deliberations and verdict. There were only three witnesses. The appellant did not testify (although a number of telephone conversations with him were recorded by the complainant and played to the jury). The evidence was fully reviewed before the jury by defence counsel and the Crown immediately prior to the judge’s instruction. The judge’s review of the evidence was succinct but adequate. While we agree that juries may tend to place more weight on what a trial judge says about the evidence than on the argument by counsel, there was no objection to the charge from defence counsel. Lack of objection is not fatal, but it may be informative, because defence counsel would have understood that additional evidentiary matters reviewed at his request might result in the judge repeating additional portions of the evidence requested by the prosecution on the same point, which might in the end have been expected to be more prejudicial than helpful to the defence. Trial counsel are well situated to assess whether the judge has given the jury an adequate review of the evidence for the purpose of the defence theory being pursued. [4] Despite Mr. Carter’s able argument on behalf of the appellant we are not persuaded that the jury instruction failed to convey a sufficient understanding of the evidence and how it related to the issues raised by the defence. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Dismissed |
|
| 2009-03-25 | Respondent's condensed book, Submitted in Court (14 copies) | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2009-03-25 | Appellant's condensed book, Submitted in Court (14 copies) | Emmanuil Royz |
| 2009-03-25 | Acknowledgement and consent for video taping of proceedings, From all parties | |
| 2009-03-25 |
Hearing of the appeal, 2009-03-25, Bi LeB De Abe Cha Ro Cro Judgment rendered |
|
| 2009-03-19 | Notice of appearance, Gillian Roberts will be present at the hearing. | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2009-02-23 | Notice of appearance, Ian Carter will be present at the hearing. | Emmanuil Royz |
| 2009-02-04 | Respondent's book of authorities, Completed on: 2009-02-04 | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2009-02-02 | Respondent's factum, Completed on: 2009-02-02 | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2009-01-26 | Appeal perfected for hearing | |
| 2008-12-01 | Appellant's book of authorities, Completed on: 2008-12-01 | Emmanuil Royz |
| 2008-12-01 | Appellant's record, (2 volumes), Completed on: 2008-12-01 | Emmanuil Royz |
| 2008-12-01 | Appellant's factum, Completed on: 2008-12-01 | Emmanuil Royz |
| 2008-11-24 | Notice of hearing sent to parties | |
| 2008-11-24 |
Appeal hearing scheduled, 2009-03-25 Judgment rendered |
|
| 2008-11-20 | Order on motion to appoint counsel, (BY LEBEL J.) | |
| 2008-11-20 |
Decision on motion to appoint counsel, LeB, UPON APPLICATION by the appellant for an order pursuant to section 694.1 of the Criminal Code for the appointment of counsel; AND HAVING READ the material filed including the consent of the Crown; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The application for the appointment of Mr. Ian Carter as counsel for the appellant is granted. The reasonable fees and disbursements of Mr. Carter shall be paid in accordance with the Legal Aid Ontario rates. Granted |
|
| 2008-11-20 | Submission of motion to appoint counsel, LeB | |
| 2008-11-12 | Motion to appoint counsel, (Letter Form), from the accused dated Nov. 7/08 stating that Ian Carter is willing to represent him and joint with the Legal Aid decision and the consent of the A.G. of Ontario, Completed on: 2008-11-12 | Emmanuil Royz |
| 2008-10-22 | Correspondence received from, Gillian Roberts dated October 22, 2008. Re: Will be the lead counsel for the respondent | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2008-10-09 | Letter advising the parties of tentative hearing date and filing deadlines (Notice of appeal – As of right) | |
| 2008-09-10 | Notice of appeal, including CA order and reasons (amended notice, Form 25B, filing fee, CD received Sept. 26), Completed on: 2008-09-26 | Emmanuil Royz |
Parties
Please note that in the case of closed files, the “Status” column reflects the status of the parties at the time of the proceedings. For more information about the proceedings and about the dates when the file was open, please consult the docket of the case in question.
Main parties
| Name | Role | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Royz, Emmanuil | Appellant | Active |
v.
| Name | Role | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Her Majesty the Queen | Respondent | Active |
Counsel
Party: Royz, Emmanuil
Counsel
200 Elgin St., Suite 500
Ottawa, Ontario
K2P 1L5
Telephone: (613) 236-0535
FAX: (613) 236-6958
Email: icarter@bsbcriminallaw.com
Party: Her Majesty the Queen
Counsel
720 Bay Street, 10th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 2K1
Telephone: (416) 326-2304
FAX: (416) 326-4656
Agent
70 Gloucester Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K2P 0A2
Telephone: (613) 566-2058
FAX: (613) 235-4430
Email: rhouston@burkerobertson.com
Summary
Keywords
None.
Summary
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 - Trial - Extortion - Jury charge - Evidence - Whether the trial judge erred in failing to review the evidence with respect to the position of the defence.
The Appellant was charged and convicted of extortion. Prior to the alleged extortion, the complainant and the Appellant were jointly charged in a scheme to defraud the government. The charges against the complainant were withdrawn after she cooperated with the police and provided a statement under oath. The Appellant pled guilty to the charges and was convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
Following his release from prison the Appellant contacted the complainant and advised that he had written a book about the investigation and planned on distributing the book in the community. In order to stop the distribution of the book, the complainant would have to buy all ten thousand copies of the book at a price of $70,000. He warned her that if she did not purchase the “distribution rights”, he would personally ensure that important people in her life received a copy of the book and that he would “ruin” her. In response the complainant informed the Ontario Provincial Police.
On appeal, the majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Borins J.A. dissenting would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. He could not find that the trial judge had properly charged the jury with all of the relevant defence evidence which could be a serious ground for exculpating the accused.
Lower court rulings
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Convicted
Court of Appeal for Ontario
C45688, 2008 ONCA 584
Appeal dismissed
Filed documents
The memorandums of argument on an application for leave to appeal will be posted here 30 days after leave to appeal has been granted unless they contain personal information, information that is subject to a publication ban, or any other information that is not part of the public record. You may also obtain copies of the memorandum by filling out the Request for Court records form or by contacting the Court’s Records Centre either by email at records-dossiers@scc-csc.ca or by telephone at 613‑996‑7933 or at 1‑888‑551‑1185.
If you have questions about a memorandum of argument or want to use a memorandum of argument, please contact the author of the memorandum of argument directly. Their name appears at the end of the memorandum of argument. The contact information for counsel is found in the “Counsel” tab of this page.
Downloadable PDFs
Not available
Related links
The factums of the appellant, the respondent and the intervener will be posted here at least 2 weeks before the hearing unless they contain personal information, information that is subject to a publication ban, or any other information that is not part of the public record. You may also obtain copies of factums by filling out the Request for Court records form or by contacting the Court’s Records Centre either by email at records-dossiers@scc-csc.ca or by telephone at 613‑996‑7933 or at 1‑888‑551‑1185.
If you have questions about a factum or want permission to use a factum, please contact the author of the factum directly. Their contact information appears on the first page of each factum.
Downloadable PDFs
Not available
Related links
The condensed books of the appellant, the respondent and the intervener will be posted here upon receipt of the electronic version, 2 days prior to the scheduled appeal hearing. You may also obtain copies of condensed books by filling out the Request for Court records form or by contacting the Court’s Records Centre either by email at records-dossiers@scc-csc.ca or by telephone at 613‑996‑7933 or at 1‑888‑551‑1185.
If you have questions about a condensed book or want permission to use a condensed book, please contact the author of the condensed book directly. Their contact information appears on the first page of each condensed book.
Downloadable PDFs
Not available