R. v. Floria
The preliminary hearing judge was required to limit the evidence to protect information covered by the order of Croll J., and the manner in which she performed that duty was within her jurisdiction and discretion; therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2011 ONCA 167
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Ioan-Florin Floria
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 4 March 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Preliminary Inquiry Decision (court of Appeal)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Publication Ban, Preliminary Hearing Evidence Limitation, Judicial Discretion, 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
Ioan-Florin Floria
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Preliminary Inquiry Decision (court of Appeal)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the preliminary hearing judge was required to limit evidence to protect information covered by a prior order of Croll J.
- 2 Whether the manner in which the preliminary hearing judge limited the evidence was within her jurisdiction and within her discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
The preliminary hearing judge was required to limit the evidence to protect information covered by the order of Croll J., and the manner in which she performed that duty was within her jurisdiction and discretion; therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Publication restriction under s.539 of the Criminal Code continues.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Floria Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2011-03-04 Neutral citation 2011 ONCA 167 Docket numbers C52757 Judges O’Connor, Dennis; Doherty, David H.; Blair, Robert Ashley Subject Criminal Decision Content W A R N I N G The President of the panel hearing this appeal directs that the following should be attached to the file: An order restricting publication in this proceeding under ss. 539(1), (2), (3) or (4) of the Criminal Code shall continue. These sections of the Criminal Code provide: 539(1) Prior to the commencement of the taking of evidence at a preliminary inquiry, the justice holding the inquiry (a) may, if application therefor is made by the prosecutor, and (b) shall, if application therefor is made by any of the accused, make an order directing that the evidence taken at the inquiry shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way before such time as, in respect of each of the accused, (c) he or she is discharged; or (d) if he or she is ordered to stand trial, the trial is ended. (2) Where an accused is not represented by counsel at a preliminary inquiry, the justice holding the inquiry shall, prior to the commencement of the taking of evidence at the inquiry, inform the accused of his right to make application under subsection (1). (3) Everyone who fails to comply with an order made pursuant to subsection (1) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. (4) [Repealed, 2005, c. 32, s. 18(2).] R.S., c. C-34, s. 467; R.S.C., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 97; 2005, c. 32, s. 18. CITATION: R. v. Floria, 2011 ONCA 167 DATE: 20110301 DOCKET: C52757 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO O’Connor A.C.J.O., Doherty and Blair JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Ioan-Florin Floria Appellant Ioan-Florin Floria, appearing in person James V. Palangio and Chris Dwornikiewicz, for the respondent Heard: March 1, 2011 On appeal from the decision of Justice Nordheimer of the Superior Court of Justice dated September 22, 2010. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The appeal is dismissed for the reasons given by Nordheimer J. For clarity, we add that the preliminary hearing judge was required to limit the evidence at the preliminary hearing so as to protect the information covered by the order of Croll J. The manner in which the preliminary hearing judge performed that duty was within her jurisdiction and within her discretion.