J. THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2011 SKCA 26 Date: 20110223 Between: Docket: CACR 1892 Lyle Edwin Parker and Her Majesty the Queen Coram: Cameron, Lane Smith JJ.A. Counsel: Lyle Edwin Parker in person Kim Jones for the Crown Appeal: From: 2010 SKQB 344 (CanLII) Heard: February 23, 2011 Disposition: Appeal dismissed (orally) Written Reasons: February 25, 2011 By: The Honourable Mr. Justice Cameron In Concurrence: The Honourable Mr. Justice Lane The Honourable Madam Justice Smith Cameron J.A. [1] The appellant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving to the Court of Queen’s Bench and, having failed, then appealed to this Court. He was convicted at trial on the basis of the testimony of his estranged wife and their daughter, whose accounts of what occurred were accepted by the trial judge. The trial judge found both to be credible witnesses. He also rejected the appellant’s account, finding that he was not credible witness. [2] The appellant was represented at trial by experienced counsel, but took the appeals himself. [3] He contends that he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice inasmuch as he has evidence that his estranged wife, out of a desire for revenge, had lied about what occurred. The evidence, he says, consists of tape recordings of conversations with his estranged wife over the last several years, recordings that indicate she was out to get him and had intimidated their daughter into testifying against him. [4] The appellant had little to say of this in the Court of Queen’s Bench beyond saying he had asked his counsel to adduce evidence of this nature at trial but that counsel had refused to do so. Nor did he apply to the Court of Queen’s Bench for new trial on the basis his counsel was incompetent, or make formal application to adduce fresh evidence. Indeed, he informed the Court that, while he had evidence to prove his estranged wife’s perjury, it was not his intention to place that evidence before the Court. He seemed to think all he had to do was raise the matter, by way of argument, to warrant new trial. [5] In the course of the argument before us, we explained to him that there are procedures that have to be followed if one intends, on appeal, to challenge the competence of trial counsel or to adduce fresh evidence. Otherwise, the courts are left with no basis upon which to act upon allegations of that nature. These procedures were not followed, and in the result there was nothing before the Court of Queen’s Bench upon which it might act, and nothing before us upon which we might act. [6] In the circumstances, we are all of the view that there is no tenable basis for allowing his appeal, setting aside his conviction, and ordering new trial. We might add that, on the facts as found by the trial judge, based on the judge’s assessments of credibility, the conduct of the accused amounted to dangerous driving within the meaning of the applicable provisions of the Criminal Code. [7] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
The appellant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving and alleged that his estranged wife and daughter lied. The appellant had been represented at trial by experienced counsel but undertook the appeals himself. HELD: Appeal dismissed. The appellant had not followed procedures that must be followed if one intends, on appeal, to challenge the competence of trial counsel or to adduce fresh evidence.