R. v. Gullins
Leave to appeal was denied because the proposed appeal raised only questions of law with no broader significance to the administration of justice and the court was not persuaded that the merits alone were sufficiently strong to warrant leave under R. v. R.R.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2010 ONCA 146
- Parties
- Appellant: Her Majesty The Queen; Respondent: Paul Edward Gullins
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 26 February 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal (crown Seeking Leave Following Summary Conviction Proceedings) / Application for Leave to Appeal From Superior Court Order Directing a New Trial
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal denied.
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Summary Conviction, New Trial, Standard for Granting Leave Under R. V. R.r.
- 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
Appellant
Paul Edward Gullins
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (crown Seeking Leave Following Summary Conviction Proceedings) / Application for Leave to Appeal From Superior Court Order Directing a New Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted where the proposed appeal raises questions of law only but no issue of broader significance to the administration of justice
- 2 Whether the Crown satisfied the second branch of the R. v. R.R. test by showing the merits of the proposed appeal appear very strong
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was denied because the proposed appeal raised only questions of law with no broader significance to the administration of justice and the court was not persuaded that the merits alone were sufficiently strong to warrant leave under R. v. R.R.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal denied.
Orders
- Leave to appeal denied.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Gullins Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2010-02-26 Neutral citation 2010 ONCA 146 Docket numbers C50811 Judges Blair, Robert Ashley; Juriansz, Russell G.; Epstein, Gloria Jean Subject Criminal Decision Content CITATION: R. v. Gullins, 2010 ONCA 146 DATE: 20100226 DOCKET: C50811 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Blair, Juriansz and Epstein JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty The Queen Appellant and Paul Edward Gullins Respondent Bradley J. Greenshields, for the appellant Jonathan Shime and Corie Langdon, for the respondent Heard & released orally: February 22, 2010 On appeal from the order of Justice Barry MacDougall of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 8, 2009. ENDORSEMENT [1] The Crown seeks leave to appeal from the order of B. MacDougall J. allowing the respondent’s appeal from his conviction on two counts of sexual assault and directing a new trial. The Crown had proceeded by way of summary conviction proceedings. [2] In this somewhat unusual situation, the respondent concedes that the proposed appeal involves a question, or questions of law alone, and the Crown concedes that the proposed appeal does not raise an issue of broader significance to the administration of justice beyond this particular case. The Crown argues, however, that leave should be granted on the second branch of the test as set out in R. v. R.R., (2008) 234 C.C.C. (3d) 463 at paras. 27 & 34-37 namely, that the merits of the proposed appeal appear very strong. The respondent contends that they are not. [3] Having regard to the fact that the proposed appeal admittedly raises no issue of broader significance to the administration of justice, we are not persuaded in the circumstances of this case that leave is warranted on the issue of the merits alone. [4] Leave to appeal is therefore denied. “R.A. Blair J.A.” “R.G. Juriansz J.A.” “Gloria Epstein J.A.”