2012 NBCA 102, 2012 NBCA 102

COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK 137-11-CA PETER MONTEITH APPELLANT PETER MONTEITH APPELANT - and - - et - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN RESPONDENT SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE INTIMÉE Monteith v. R., 2012 NBCA 102 Monteith c.

R., 2012 NBCA 102 CORAM: The Honourable Justice Bell The Honourable Justice Quigg The Honourable Justice Green CORAM : L’honorable juge Bell L’honorable juge Quigg L’honorable juge Green Appeal from a decision of the Provincial Court: June 2, 2011 – (conviction) November 10, 2011 – (sentence) Appel d’une décision de la Cour provinciale : Le 2 juin 2011 – (déclaration de culpabilité) Le 10 novembre 2011 – (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: September 18, 2012 Further Submissions: October 11, 2012 (Appellant) October 31, 2012 (Respondent) Appel entendu : Le 18 septembre 2012 Mémoires complémentaires : Le 11 octobre 2012 (appelant) Le 31 octobre 2012 (intimé

e) Judgment rendered: December 20, 2012 Jugement rendu : Le 20 décembre 2012

Counsel at hearing: For the appellant: Peter Monteith appeared in person For the respondent: Cameron H. Gunn Avocats à l’audience : Pour l’appelant : Peter Monteith a comparu en personne Pour l’intimée : Cameron H. Gunn THE COURT The appeal is allowed in part. The appeal against conviction in relation to the Sirius satellite radio is allowed and a verdict of acquittal is entered. On the count involving the TD Canada Trust banking card, Mr. Monteith’s applications for leave to appeal conviction and sentence are dismissed. LA COUR L’appel est accueilli en partie.

L’appel de la déclaration de culpabilité pour ce qui est de la radio par satellite Sirius est accueilli et un verdict d’acquittement est inscrit. Pour ce qui a trait au chef d’accusation portant sur la carte bancaire TD Canada Trust, les demandes d’autorisation d’interjeter appel de la déclaration de culpabilité et de la peine sont rejetées. The following is the judgment delivered by THE COURT [ 1 ] On June 2, 2011, following trial, a Provincial Court judge found Peter Monteith guilty of two counts of unlawful possession of property of a value not exceeding $5,000, an offence set out in s. 355 ( b )(

i) of the Criminal Code . The first offence related to a Sirius satellite radio and the second related to a TD Canada Trust banking card. On November 10, 2011, the judge sentenced Mr. Monteith to 30 days’ imprisonment on each count, concurrent to any time then being served. [ 2 ] Mr. Monteith appeals both the convictions and the sentences passed. [ 3 ] To the extent Mr. Monteith’s appeal from the convictions involve questions of law alone, he may appeal as of right: s. 675(1) ( a )(

i) of the Criminal Code . To the extent the appeal from the convictions raise questions of mixed fact and law, Mr. Monteith requires leave to appeal ( s. 675(1) ( a )(ii)). Leave is also required to appeal the sentences: s. 675(1) ( b ). [ 4 ] Crown counsel on appeal acknowledges that, due to a misunderstanding between trial Crown counsel and the judge regarding procedural matters, there was no evidence properly admitted at the trial in relation to the Sirius satellite radio. Quite rightly, Crown counsel admits this error constitutes a question of law alone and encourages this Court to allow the appeal (see R. v.

J.M.H. , 2011 SCC 45 , [2011] 3 S.C.R. 197, at para. 25 ; R. v. Biniaris , 2000 SCC 15 , [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381, at para. 37 ; R. v. Martin , 2010 NBCA 41 , 361 N.B.R. (2d) 251 at para. 34 ; and R. v. A.S. , 2006 NBCA 5 , 296 N.B.R. (2d) 363 at para. 9 ). We therefore allow the appeal with respect to the Sirius satellite radio, and order that a verdict of acquittal be entered in relation to that charge. [ 5 ] The issues raised by Mr. Monteith in his appeal from conviction on the count involving the TD Canada Trust banking card constitute questions of mixed fact and law.

There being no merit to his grounds of appeal, we dismiss his application for leave to appeal that conviction, as well as his application for leave to appeal the sentence.

________________________________ B. RICHARD BELL, J.A. ________________________________ KATHLEEN A. QUIGG, J.A. ________________________________ BRADLEY V. GREEN, J.A.