Last week, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal refused to grant leave (permission) to appeal a decision from a few years ago. Like many, Erinn Knoll had been criminally charged for exercising her rights to protest. She was ultimately acquitted by the Provincial Court, although not everyone was.
Typically, when a Defendant brings an Appeal, it’s to challenge their: (a) conviction; (b) sentence; or (c) both. However, she did something quite different. She challenged an interlocutory (or intermediate) ruling that denied relief based on the Bill of Rights.
Even though she was cleared, Knoll still wanted vindication that what she was doing was protected expression.
The attitude of the Court appeared to be one of confusion of disbelief. As she was ultimately acquitted, why bother appealing an earlier ruling? From the decision:
[2] Notwithstanding her acquittal, Ms. Knoll appealed to the Court of King’s Bench, seeking to reverse mid-trial rulings that had dismissed her applications challenging the constitutionality of the Public Health Order, and her application for a stay of proceedings based on an alleged violation of her rights under s. 11(d) of the Charter (see: R v Hagel et al (18 January 2023), Regina Information #991192882 (SKPC); R v Friesen, 2023 SKPC 18; and R v Knoll, 2023 SKPC 29).
[3] A judge of the Court of King’s Bench, sitting as a summary conviction appeal court, dismissed Ms. Knoll’s appeal because she determined that there was no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory ruling in those circumstances (R v Knoll (24 March 2025), Regina CRM-RG-00242-2023 (SKKB)). Ms. Knoll now seeks leave to appeal, and to appeal, against the ruling of the summary conviction appeal court.
[6] A right of appeal exists only where a relevant statute provides for it. In this case, the applicable provision of the Criminal Code – s. 813(a) – grants defendants in summary conviction proceedings the right to appeal against only: (i) a conviction or order made against them; (ii) a sentence imposed on them; or (iii) a verdict or finding made under the mental disorder provisions of the Criminal Code. In this context, the word “order” means an order that finally disposes of the charge set out in the information. There is nothing in s. 813(a), or anywhere else in the Criminal Code, that gives a person who has been acquitted the right to appeal against an unfavourable interlocutory ruling made during the trial.
[8] All of this means that Ms. Knoll’s proposed appeal not only lacks merit, but also that it is not significant to the administration of justice generally because the question it raises is one that has been definitively answered.
[9] Additionally, the fact that Ms. Knoll was acquitted of the charge means that she is not facing a deprivation of liberty, and there is no risk of an injustice going unaddressed if leave to appeal is not granted.
Predictably, the Crown also argued that the case was moot. Had there been a conviction, then it would possibly be grounds to appeal, but not here.
While Knoll did win in the criminal case, she wanted a Court to admit she was right. But that didn’t happen, and Justices Tholl, Kalmakoff and McCreary had little interest in what they called “academic”. Never mind that such a ruling might help if such actions were repeated in the future.
***Note: The Appellant’s papers were prepared by Chris Weisdorf. In Ontario, he argued and won a Bill of Rights Appeal in the Summer of 2024. Those papers are an interesting read.
KNOLL COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skpc/doc/2023/2023skpc29/2023skpc29.html
(2) Court Of Appeal: 2026 SKCA 035
(3) R. v. Knoll – Appellant – Memorandum of Argument – Final – 2025-01-28
(4) R v Knoll – Appeal Book – Appellant – Knoll – 23-MAY-2025
(5) R v Knoll – Factum – Appellant – Knoll – 23-MAY-2025
(6) R v Knoll – Written Submission on Repo Decision – Appellant – Knoll – 13-FEB-2026
(7) CRM-RG-000242-2023 – AGSK Brief
FERNANDO COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2024/2024oncj336/2024oncj336.html
(2) R. v. Fernando_Ruling_Transcript_26_June_2024
(3) R. v. Fernando – Notice of Appeal – Signed – 2023-09-14
(4) R. v. Fernando – Appellant – Appeal Book – 2024-01-19
(5) R. v. Fernando – Factum of the Appellant – 2024-02-29
(6) R. v. Fernando – Reply Factum of the Appellant – 2024-06-21