R. v. Mullin
Leave to appeal was denied because the appellant's arguments were limited to alleged misapprehensions of the evidence (factual issues) and did not raise a question of law of importance beyond the individual case; appellate courts will not retry factual determinations.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2010 ONCA 250
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Applicant (appellant): Steven Kim Mullin
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 7 April 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Leave to Appeal Application to Court of Appeal; Appeal From Summary Conviction Appeal Court Decision
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal denied
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Question of Law, Factual Findings, Standard of Review
- 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
Steven Kim Mullin
Applicant (appellant)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Leave to Appeal Application to Court of Appeal; Appeal From Summary Conviction Appeal Court Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant raised a question of law of importance beyond the individual case
- 2 Whether alleged misapprehensions of evidence by the trial judge constitute a reviewable question of law
- 3 Whether the appellate court may retry factual findings
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was denied because the appellant's arguments were limited to alleged misapprehensions of the evidence (factual issues) and did not raise a question of law of importance beyond the individual case; appellate courts will not retry factual determinations.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal denied
Orders
- Leave to appeal denied
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Mullin Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2010-04-07 Neutral citation 2010 ONCA 250 Docket numbers C51627 Judges Goudge, Stephen Thomas; MacFarland, Jean Louise; LaForme, Harry Smith Subject Criminal Decision Content CITATION: R. v. Mullin, 2010 ONCA 250 DATE: 20100406 DOCKET: C51627 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Goudge, MacFarland and LaForme JJ.A. BETWEEN: Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Steven Kim Mullin Applicant (Appellant) W. Parker, for the appellant John McInnes, for the respondent Heard: March 31, 2010 On appeal from the decision of the summary conviction appeal court dated November 9, 2009 by Justice McEwan of Superior Court of Justice dismissing the appeal from the conviction entered on October 10, 2008 by Justice H. Crawford of the Superior Court of Justice. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] It is open to this court to hear this matter only if the appellant raises a question of law of importance beyond the individual case. [2] The appellant’s arguments focus on factual findings said to be based on misapprehensions of the evidence. However, it is not open to us to retry the case. The appellant’s arguments do not raise an issue of law nor an issue that extends beyond this case. [3] Leave to appeal is denied.