PEI man convicted of disturbance for mask mandate outburst allowed extension to file leave to appeal

Court of Appeal recognized that self-represented accused was misled on timing

PEI man convicted of disturbance for mask mandate outburst allowed extension to file leave to appeal
Courts have the right to mandate the wearing of masks during a pandemic upon entry into the courthouse

The Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal has granted a self-represented litigant an extension to file a leave to appeal his conviction for causing a disturbance from an outburst and refusing to wear a mask.

In R. v Allison Carver, 2022 PECA 4, Allison Carver arrived at the Provincial Court in Charlottetown to appear before a provincial court judge. At the entrance, he was asked by a deputy sheriff to wear a mask due to COVID-19 restrictions. However, Carver grew agitated, used profane language, yelled, and swatted away the box containing masks offered to him. He eventually left without being permitted into the courthouse.

Carver was charged and convicted with causing a disturbance. His sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation. Carver appealed both the conviction and the sentence to the Summary Conviction Appeal Court (SCAC), but his appeal was dismissed. Carver filed a notice for leave to appeal, which was out of time.

Most Read

Overlooking several errors, the appellate court granted Carver an extension to file for leave to appeal.

The appellate court found that Carver had a bona fide intention to appeal, since “ultimately, and through no fault of his own, Carver was misled as to the prescribed time period.” The advice he received was erroneous, as it pertained to the civil appeals and not criminal appeals, said the court.

As a self-represented litigant, the appellate court also noted that “Carver is not skilled in articulating his problem in legal terms.” His oral representations were often unfocused and irrelevant, and his grounds of appeal also appeared to be a verbatim repetition of those raised before the SCAC, said the court.

Nevertheless, the court found that Carver’s first three grounds of appeal on the interpretation of “disturbance,” finding of disturbance, and misapplication of the Criminal Code warranted, at the very least, consideration if it met the test for leave.

However, the court found that his other grounds on abuse of process, charter, and sentence were all without merit.

“The court has a constitutional right to govern its own proceedings and that includes the right to require masks to be worn during a pandemic,” said the court. “The Sheriffs did nothing wrong as they were merely following the direction of the court.”

Ultimately, the appellate court concluded that it was in the interest of justice to grant the extension of time to Carter, as a self-represented litigant who tried to find counsel and struggled to file proper documents.

Recent articles & video

Jo-Anne Demers, chair of the Canadian board of Clyde & Co, on leading at a global insurance firm

Trudeau names new board members for next Supreme Court of Canada justice selection

NB advocate agency calls for adoption of new measures to protect rights of children in care

Permission to appeal, merits of appeal from arbitration heard separately: Alberta Court of Appeal

Liquidator can't assess claims against directors of corporation: Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

McCarthy Tetrault LLP representing Royal Bank of Canada in $8.5 million case

Most Read Articles

Revealed: Canadian Law Awards winners 2022

Latham & Watkins expands investment funds practice in New York

Essential questions to ask a divorce lawyer

Ontario Court of Appeal dismisses $350,000 claim for failed cannabis company acquisition