Mymryk v. The Queen

Mymryk v. The Queen
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
1980-03-03
Report
[1980] 1 SCR 348
Judges
Laskin, Bora; Martland, Ronald; Ritchie, Roland Almon; Pigeon, Louis-Philippe; Dickson, Robert George Brian; Beetz, Jean; Estey, Willard Zebedee; McIntyre, William Rogers; Chouinard, Julien
On appeal from
Quebec
Subjects
Appeal
Decision Content
Supreme Court of Canada
Mymryk v. The Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 348
Date: 1980-03-03
Michael Daniel Mymryk Applicant;
and
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent.
1980: March 3.
Present: Laskin C.J. and Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre and Chouinard JJ.
SECOND APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
Appeal—Practice—Leave to appeal denied—Motion for a rehearing of the application for leave—Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, Rule 61.
MOTION for a rehearing of the application for leave which was denied on November 6, 1978. Motion dismissed.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
THE CHIEF JUSTICE—A motion for leave to appeal in this matter, involving a conviction of murder, came on for hearing before Justices Pigeon, Dickson and Beetz on November 6, 1978. The motion was denied at that time. On January 14, 1980, the applicant filed a new motion for a rehearing of the application for leave. The material in support suggests that the applicant wishes to have his application treated as a request to this Court to hear a fresh motion for leave or to rehear the original motion as if the application came within Rule 61 of the Rules of this Court.
This Court does not entertain successive applications for leave to appeal in the same case, even if the applicant was not out of time, as he plainly is in this case. Nor can the applicant rely on Rule 61 to found a claim for a rehearing. Rule 61 is confined to a discretionary authority in this Court to order a rehearing in an appeal not in an application for leave to appeal. The applicant’s alternative requests are accordingly denied. I should add that this is the view of the full Court to which the applicant’s alternative requests were referred. Motion dismissed.
Solicitors for the applicant: Robert La Haye and Josée Ferrari, Montreal.
Solicitor for the respondent: Denis Robert, St-Hyacinthe, Qué.