R. v. Marryshow
The appeal was dismissed because the impugned search was either compliant with s.8 or was a valid search incident to arrest and there was no basis to disturb the trial judge's conviction.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2008 ONCA 806
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Andrew Marryshow
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 28 November 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction to Court of Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Search and Seizure, Section 8 Charter, Search Incident to Arrest, Admissibility of Evidence, Appeal to Court of Appeal
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Andrew Marryshow
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction to Court of Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the search violated section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
- 2 Whether the search was lawful as a search incident to arrest
- 3 Whether the conviction should be overturned on appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the impugned search was either compliant with s.8 or was a valid search incident to arrest and there was no basis to disturb the trial judge's conviction.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Conviction affirmed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Marryshow Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2008-11-28 Neutral citation 2008 ONCA 806 Docket numbers C46877 Judges Goudge, Stephen Thomas; MacFarland, Jean Louise; Watt, David Subject Criminal Decision Content CITATION: R. v. Marryshow, 2008 ONCA 806 DATE: 20081128 DOCKET: C46877 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Goudge, MacFarland and Watt JJ.A. BETWEEN: Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Andrew Marryshow Appellant George Filipovic for the appellant Peter Scrutton for the respondent Heard and endorsed: November 26, 2008 On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice Nancy Mossip of the Superior Court of Justice dated April 3, 2003. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] Whether one views this as an issue of s. 8 or a proper search pursuant to an arrest, in our view the appeal must be dismissed.