Citation: R v Hjorleifson, 2022 MBCA 27 Date: 20220323 Docket: AR21-30-09627 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Mr. Justice William J. Burnett Madam Justice Jennifer A. Pfuetzner Madam Justice Lori T. Spivak BETWEEN : ) G. J. Hjorleifson ) on his own behalf ) her majesty the queen ) C. R.

Savage ) for the Respondent (Respondent) Respondent ) ) Appeal heard and - and - ) Decision pronounced: ) February 14, 2022 grant jonathan hjorleifson ) ) Motion under Court of (Accused) (Appellant) Appellant ) Appeal Rule 46.2 ) ) Decision pronounced : ) March 23, 2022 per curiAm [ 1 ] The accused moves for an order pursuant to r 46.2 of the MB, Court of Appeal Rules , MR 555/88R (the CA Rules ), for the rehearing of his appeal, which was dismissed on February 14, 2022 (see 2022 MBCA 22 ). No certificate of decision has yet been entered. The accused has filed a memorandum of argument addressing his motion.

The Crown advised that it would not be filing a reply. [ 2 ] In Rémillard v Rémillard , 2015 MBCA 42 , Hamilton JA set out the principles governing a motion for a rehearing under r 46.2 of the CA Rules (see paras 7-9) and concluded that “the rehearing of an appeal is to be ‘granted only in exceptional circumstances, where the interests of justice manifestly compel such a course of action’” (at para 8). [ 3 ] We have reviewed the written material that has been filed and we are satisfied that oral argument is not required on this motion (see r 46.2(9) of the CA Rules ). [ 4 ] Moreover, we are of the view that the material filed does not identify any issues that meet the test for a rehearing as set out in Rémillard .

In particular, there is nothing in the material that raises a question about our prior conclusion that the accused has not established that a miscarriage of justice occurred. [ 5 ] For these reasons, we are dismissing the motion for a rehearing of the appeal. JA

JA JA