Focus On

APPEALS - Powers of appellate court

Monday, June 21, 2021 @ 2:35 PM  


Lexis Advance® Quicklaw®
Motion by the Court to quash appeals and applications brought by the accused, Holland. The accused faced criminal charges with the trial yet to occur. Acting on a self-represented basis, the accused filed several appeals and applications in relation to her proceedings. For example, she applied to have the judge and Crown counsel removed. She applied for certiorari on the basis she was a political prisoner and internationally protected person targeted by a conspiracy between justice system and political entities. The accused applied to have direct indictments preferred against several individuals, including the Prime Minister, alleging, among other things, crimes against humanity. She applied to vary her bail, halt COVID-19 vaccination, and stop the use of 5G technology. The accused alleged the courts had no jurisdiction over her and claimed to be a judge of the International Universal Supreme Court of The Tsilhqot’in. All the accused’s applications were dismissed as devoid of merit. The accused appealed. The Court sought to quash the appeals and applications on its own motion.

HELD: Motion allowed. The accused’s appeals and applications were quashed for want of jurisdiction. It was plain and obvious that the accused had minimal regard for the limits on the Court’s jurisdiction. In the absence of a Houweling order, the accused would persist with pointless appeals and applications, misusing and abusing the Court’s resources. As part of the Court’s authority to prevent abuse of its processes, an order was required precluding the accused directly or indirectly filing any document in any registry of the Court of Appeal, save for a conviction or sentence appeal, or other specified applications.

R. v. Holland, [2021] B.C.J. No. 934, British Columbia Court of Appeal, S.D. Frankel, S.A. Griffin and J.C. Grauer JJ.A., May 3, 2021. Digest No. TLD-June212021002