As is widely known, judicial officers who give oral reasons are generally given those oral reasons for revision if those reasons are transcribed for appeal.
This is a sensible and proper thing because oral transcriptions can sometimes be wrong and a missing word, or comma, can change the meaning of a text significantly.
However, such revision must be limited to correcting grammar and nothing more as is shown by yesterday’s decision in R. v. Geesic, 2010 ONCA 365.
The Court of Appeal writes:
[2] Turning to the errors, the trial judge impermissibly altered the substance of the reasons she delivered orally in court as transcribed by the court reporter. This was especially troublesome here as the editing occurred after the Crown had filed its Notice of Appeal. For obvious reasons, this is unacceptable and should not occur.
This author notes, although perhaps not directly relevant here, appeals are of the orders made and not the reasons given. The reasons are relevant only insofar as they show how the order appealed from was arrived at and thereby reveal potential errors. That said, Geesic is a clear statement that judicial officers must take care in revision of oral reasons to only revise for sense and grammar and not substance.
No comments:
Post a Comment