2013 NBCA 29, 2013 NBCA 29

COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK COUR D’APPEL DU NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK 96-12-CA JOHN JAMES BARTLETT APPELLANT JOHN JAMES BARTLETT APPELANT - and - - et - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN RESPONDENT SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE INTIMÉE Bartlett v. R., 2013 NBCA 29 Bartlett c.

R., 2013 NBCA 29 CORAM: The Honourable Justice Larlee The Honourable Justice Bell The Honourable Justice Quigg CORAM : L’honorable juge Larlee L’honorable juge Bell L’honorable juge Quigg Appeal from a decision of the Provincial Court: June 5, 2012 (conviction) June 27, 2012 (sentence) Appel d’une décision de la Cour provinciale : Le 5 juin 2012 (déclaration de culpabilité) Le 27 juin 2012 (détermination de la peine) History of Case: Historique de la cause : Decision under appeal: Unreported Décision frappée d’appel : Inédite Preliminary or incidental proceedings: N/A Procédures préliminaires ou accessoires : S.O.

Appeal heard: March 13, 2013 Appel entendu : Le 13 mars 2013 Judgment rendered: April 25, 2013 Jugement rendu : Le 25 avril 2013

Counsel at hearing: For the appellant: John James Bartlett appeared in person For the respondent: Cameron H. Gunn Avocats à l’audience : Pour l’appelant : John James Bartlett a comparu en personne Pour l’intimée : Cameron H. Gunn THE COURT The application for leave to appeal the assault andcriminal harassment convictions is dismissed. LA COUR Rejette la demande d’autorisation d’appeler desdéclarations de culpabilité prononcées pour voies defait et pour harcèlement criminel. The following is the judgment delivered by THE COURT [1] On June 5, 2012, following trial, a Provincial Court judge found John James Bartlett guilty ofone count of assault (s. 266(

a) of the Criminal Code), one count of criminal harassment (s. 264(3)(b)) and two counts of breach ofprobation (s. 733.1(1)(a)). [2] Mr. Bartlett is self-represented. He appeals his convictions under ss. 266(

a) and 264(3)(b),with the understanding that, if successful, the breaches of probation would fall as well. He claims the trial judge misinterpreted theevidence and made erroneous conclusions in relation to credibility. He also claims the trial judge erred when he permitted Crowncounsel to re-examine one of the Crown witnesses. All of the issues raised by Mr. Bartlett constitute questions of fact or questions ofmixed fact and law for which leave to appeal is required in relation to the conviction under

section 266(a): s. 675(1)(a)(ii). Leave is alsorequired, pursuant to s. 675(1.1), in order to appeal the

summary conviction matter to this Court. [3] Mr. Bartlett’s major preoccupation is with the credibility findings and the findings of factmade by the trial judge. It is not this Court’s role to retry cases: R. v. Banks, 2012 NBCA 80, 396 N.B.R. (2d) 325, para. 9; R. v.Deschênes, 2012 NBCA 10, 382 N.B.R. (2d) 334, para. 3. We would also note the trial judge properly applied the principles set out inR. v. W.(D.), (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, [1991] S.C.J.

No. 26 (QL) in his assessment of the evidence. [4] During cross-examination of the victim, defence counsel posed questions about a telephonecall between the victim and Mr. Bartlett, a matter which had not been raised in direct examination. On re-examination Crown counselasked the victim about what she told Mr. Bartlett during that call. We are of the view the trial judge did not err when he permitted there-examination of the victim on that narrow issue. (See R. v. Evans, (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 629, [1993] S.C.J.

No. 30(QL) at para. 38.) [5] In the circumstances, we dismiss the application for leave to appeal both the assault and thecriminal harassment convictions.

__________________________________ M.E.L. LARLEE, J.A. __________________________________ B. RICHARD BELL, J.A. __________________________________ KATHLEEN A. QUIGG, J.A.