R. v. Sweet
The appeal was dismissed because the Criminal Code contains no provision permitting appellate review of the interlocutory application in a criminal proceeding, so the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C41611
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Edward Sweet
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 6 October 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Appealability, Interlocutory Order, Jurisdiction
- 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
Edward Sweet
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an interlocutory application decision in a criminal proceeding is subject to appellate review
- 2 Whether the Criminal Code provides statutory authority for appeal of interlocutory orders in criminal proceedings
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the Criminal Code contains no provision permitting appellate review of the interlocutory application in a criminal proceeding, so the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Sweet Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2004-10-06 Docket numbers C41611 Judges Labrosse, Jean-Marc; Weiler, Karen Merle Magnuson; Blair, Robert Ashley Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20041006 DOCKET: C41611 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) -and- EDWARD SWEET (Appellant) BEFORE: LABROSSE, WEILER and BLAIR JJ.A. COUNSEL: Robert B. Howe for the appellant Croft Michaelson for the respondent HEARD AND ENDORSED: October 6, 2004 On appeal from the decision of Justice Michael J. Quigley of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury, dated March 24, 2004. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The application in the court below was an interlocutory application in the context of a criminal proceeding. There is no provision in the Criminal Code that permits the appellant to seek appellate review of that decision. [2] The appeal is dismissed.