R. v. Minaudo
Leave to appeal was granted but the Court found no error in the Summary Conviction Appeal Court's disposition: the trial judge's inferences were reasonably open and within his purview, the proposed fresh evidence was improperly characterized (showing the Human Rights Commission, not the complainant, advancing the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C43845
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Antonio Minaudo
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 8 September 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Court of Appeal Decision on Leave and Appeal (appeal From Superior Court of Justice Decision Dated July 8, 2005)
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Fresh Evidence, Appellate Standard of Review, Inferential Reasoning, Sentence Appeal, Human Rights Claim Characterization
- 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
Antonio Minaudo
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Court of Appeal Decision on Leave and Appeal (appeal From Superior Court of Justice Decision Dated July 8, 2005)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted
- 2 Whether appellate court should overturn trial judge's inferences
- 3 Whether proposed fresh evidence should be admitted
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was granted but the Court found no error in the Summary Conviction Appeal Court's disposition: the trial judge's inferences were reasonably open and within his purview, the proposed fresh evidence was improperly characterized (showing the Human Rights Commission, not the complainant, advancing the claim) and the sentence appeal lacked merit, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Sentence appeal dismissed; no change to sentence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Minaudo Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2006-09-08 Docket numbers C43845 Judges Doherty, David H.; Laskin, John Ivan; Borins, Stephen Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20060907 DOCKET: C43845 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) v. ANTONIO MINAUDO (Appellant) BEFORE: DOHERTY, LASKIN and BORINS JJ.A. COUNSEL: Paul Calarco for the appellant Amanda Rubaszek for the respondent HEARD & ENDORSED: September 6, 2006 On appeal from the decision entered by Justice Bryant of the Superior Court of Justice dated July 8, 2005. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] We are prepared to grant leave to appeal. We see no error in the disposition of the Summary Conviction Appeal Court and agree with the reasons. [2] We add two comments. The suggestion that the trial judge drew improper inferences misunderstands the scope of the appellate review. If inferences are reasonably open, the weight to be given to the inference is for the trial judge and not the appellate court. The trial judge drew inferences from the appellant’s conversation with the victim’s mother. Those inferences were reasonably open. The trial judge gave those inferences prominence in his decision making process. It was within his purview to do so. [3] We also note that in addition to the reasons given by the Summary Conviction Appeal Court for rejecting the proposed fresh evidence, that the document said to constitute fresh evidence indicates that the Human Rights Commission and not the complainant (as alleged by the appellant) was advancing a claim for $50,000 in damages and a mental anguish claim. [4] We see no merit to the sentence appeal. [5] The appeal is dismissed.