R. v. Sagoo
Because at least one non-frivolous ground was identified—namely whether the trial judge properly relied on the appellant's failure to comment to the 911 operator—the court granted bail pending appeal and a stay of the driving prohibition on the terms of the draft order provided.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2018 ONCA 58
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Applicant (appellant): Jastaap Sagoo
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 25 January 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Motion for Bail Pending Appeal and Stay of Driving Prohibition
- Outcome
- Bail pending appeal and stay of the six-year driving prohibition granted on the terms of the draft order provided.
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Appeal, Stay of Driving Prohibition, Credibility Assessment, Use of Accused's Silence in Credibility Findings
- 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
Jastaap Sagoo
Applicant (appellant)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Motion for Bail Pending Appeal and Stay of Driving Prohibition
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether bail pending appeal should be granted
- 2 Whether a stay of the six-year driving prohibition should be granted
- 3 Whether the trial judge erred by relying on the appellant's failure to comment to the 911 operator in assessing credibility
Ratio Decidendi
Because at least one non-frivolous ground was identified—namely whether the trial judge properly relied on the appellant's failure to comment to the 911 operator—the court granted bail pending appeal and a stay of the driving prohibition on the terms of the draft order provided.
Court Disposition
Bail pending appeal and stay of the six-year driving prohibition granted on the terms of the draft order provided.
Orders
- Bail pending appeal granted on the terms of the draft order provided by the appellant.
- Stay of the six-year driving prohibition granted on the terms of the draft order provided by the appellant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Sagoo Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2018-01-25 Neutral citation 2018 ONCA 58 Docket numbers C64847, M48729 Judges Feldman, Kathryn N. Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Sagoo, 2018 ONCA 58 DATE: 20180123 DOCKET: M48729 (C64847) Feldman J.A. (Motion Judge) BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Jastaap Sagoo Applicant (Appellant) Stephen Price, for the appellant Jessica Smith Joy, for the respondent Heard: January 23, 2018 ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant seeks bail pending appeal and a stay of the driving prohibition of six years. The sentence is six months plus two years probation. [2] The Crown opposes on the ground that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has raised a number of grounds including alleged misapprehensions of the evidence or failure to reconcile inconsistencies, which, in my view can be characterized as frivolous. [3] One alleged error of law is raised that cannot, at this stage, be said to be frivolous: that is the trial judge’s use of the appellant’s failure to comment on the van in front of him to the 911 operator. The trial judge used that as part of his reasons for disbelieving the appellant: see R. v. Rivera 2011 ONCA 225 and R. v. Bowen 2011 O.J. 3738. Whether these cases apply is the issue raised. [4] The Crown does not rely on either of the other grounds to oppose bail or the stay of the driving prohibition. The appellant was allowed to drive to work pending trial. Counsel has the transcripts and agrees to perfect very expeditiously. [5] In the circumstances, bail and the stay are granted on the terms of the draft order provided.