R. v. King

Summary

Single-judge motion decision. The moving party sought to appeal convictions and sentence about 17 months late, arguing his re-election to judge-alone trial was not informed. The motion judge found no intention to appeal within the period, no reasonable explanation for the delay, and no apparent merit on the transcript. He also found that parallel proceedings at three court levels would not serve the interests of justice. Extension refused.

Outcome

Motion for extension of time dismissed (para. 26). Applicant is the convicted moving party. Related: the Crown's earlier appeal on the intimidation acquittal was allowed July 17, 2026 and a conviction substituted. Sentencing on that count is remitted to the Superior Court for December 2026. King is reported as seeking SCC leave on that conviction (para. 25).

Why this case matters

A judge refused to extend the time to appeal where the moving party showed no intention to appeal within the period, gave no reasonable explanation for the delay, and had no apparent merit on the transcript.

Paragraph references

Test: para. 15. No intention to appeal: paras. 16, 19. Delay unexplained: paras. 20-21. Merit assessed against transcript; counsel's two options account not credible: paras. 22-24. The adjournment condition requiring a s. 11(b) waiver was not unfair: para. 23. Prejudice and multiplicity of proceedings: para. 25. Disposition: para. 26.