R. v. Dadshani
Leave to appeal was denied because the issues were moot between the parties, R. v. Peterman remains binding precedent, and the motion judge's endorsement of the Legal Aid Plan restriction and reliance on the case's unique circumstances justified refusal of leave.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2009 ONCA 212
- Parties
- Appellant: Her Majesty the Queen; Respondent: Tawab Dadshani; Respondent: Tarik Echrif; Intervenor: Ontario Legal Aid (Toronto)
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 6 March 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal (denied)
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal denied
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Mootness, Choice of Counsel, Legal Aid Restrictions, Precedent (r. V. Peterman)
- 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
Tawab Dadshani
Respondent
Tarik Echrif
Respondent
Ontario Legal Aid (Toronto)
Intervenor
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal (denied)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted
- 2 Whether the proposed appeal is moot
- 3 Whether the Legal Aid Plan may restrict accuseds to selecting counsel only from major centres
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was denied because the issues were moot between the parties, R. v. Peterman remains binding precedent, and the motion judge's endorsement of the Legal Aid Plan restriction and reliance on the case's unique circumstances justified refusal of leave.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal denied
Orders
- Leave to appeal is denied
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Dadshani Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2009-03-06 Neutral citation 2009 ONCA 212 Docket numbers C48475 Judges Moldaver, Michael James; MacFarland, Jean Louise; Epstein, Gloria Jean Subject Criminal Decision Content CITATION: R. v. Dadshani, 2009 ONCA 212 DATE: 20090306 DOCKET: C48475 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Moldaver, MacFarland and Epstein JJ.A. BETWEEN: Her Majesty the Queen Appellant and Tawab Dadshani and Tarik Echrif Respondents Troy Harrison, for the appellant Louis P. Strezos, amicus curiae, for the respondent Dadshani Joseph Di Luca, amicus curiae, for the respondent Echrif J. Stanley Jenkins, for the intervenor Ontario Legal Aid ( Toronto) Heard and endorsed: March 5, 2009 On appeal from the order of Justice Colin McKinnon of the Superior Court of Justice dated February 8, 2008. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] Despite Mr. Harrison’s able argument, we have not been persuaded that this is a case in which leave to appeal should be granted. [2] The issue raised in the proposed appeal has been resolved as between the parties and the appeal is therefore moot. While we acknowledge that the proposed appeal nonetheless raises arguable issues, they are not evasive of review. Moreover, this court’s decision in R. v. Peterman remains the law of this Province. As well, the motion judge made it clear in his reasons that he endorsed as “wise” the policy of the Legal Aid Plan to restrict choice of counsel to the major centres in which accused persons are to be tried; that this case was not to be taken as opening the floodgates for persons charged with first degree murder to choose counsel from outside of the centres in which they are charged and that his decision very much rested on the particular and unique circumstances of this case. [3] For these reasons, leave to appeal is denied.