R. v. Nicholson
The Court held that the trial judge did have jurisdiction to preside over the trial and therefore dismissed the appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2016 ONCA 677
- Parties
- Appellant: Jermaine Nicholson; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 12 September 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence Following Trial in the Superior Court of Justice
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction
- 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
Jermaine Nicholson
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence Following Trial in the Superior Court of Justice
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge had jurisdiction over the appellant's trial
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that the trial judge did have jurisdiction to preside over the trial and therefore dismissed the appeal.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Nicholson Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2016-09-12 Neutral citation 2016 ONCA 677 Docket numbers C61985 Judges MacPherson, James C.; Pepall, Sarah E.; Pardu, Gladys I. Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Nicholson, 2016 ONCA 677 DATE: 20160912 DOCKET: C61985 MacPherson, Pepall and Pardu JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Jermaine Nicholson Appellant Jermaine Nicholson, acting in person Joseph Di Luca, duty counsel Geoffrey Roy, for the respondent Heard: September 7, 2016 On appeal from the conviction entered on January 28, 2016 and the sentence imposed on April 4, 2016 by Justice Miller of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant contends the trial judge did not have jurisdiction over his trial. He is wrong. The appeal is dismissed.