R. v. M., J.
Because the record indicated the Crown may have proceeded by indictment, the appeal to this court was brought by an improper route and the court lacked jurisdiction to decide the matter; therefore the appeal was quashed for jurisdictional reasons without decision on the merits.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C30773
- Parties
- Appellant: J.M. (a young person); Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 6 July 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal From Summary Conviction / Indictable Appeal Issue / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Quashed for Lack of Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- Appeal quashed for lack of jurisdiction.
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Leave to Appeal, Indictable Vs Summary Proceedings, Conviction, Sentence
- 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
J.M. (a young person)
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal From Summary Conviction / Indictable Appeal Issue / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Quashed for Lack of Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction given the matter may have proceeded by indictment
- 2 Whether the appeal route was proper (summary conviction appeal versus direct appeal as of right)
- 3 Whether the appeal should be quashed for jurisdictional defect
Ratio Decidendi
Because the record indicated the Crown may have proceeded by indictment, the appeal to this court was brought by an improper route and the court lacked jurisdiction to decide the matter; therefore the appeal was quashed for jurisdictional reasons without decision on the merits.
Court Disposition
Appeal quashed for lack of jurisdiction.
Orders
- Appeal quashed for jurisdictional reasons.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. M., J. Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 1999-07-06 Docket numbers C30773 Judges Finlayson, George Duncan; Weiler, Karen Merle Magnuson; Charron, Louise Vivianne Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 19990706 DOCKET: C30773 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) –and– J.M. (a young person) (Appellant) BEFORE: FINLAYSON, WEILER and CHARRON JJ.A. COUNSEL: Allan D. Gold, for the appellant Scott C. Hutchison, for the respondent HEARD: May 5, 1999 On appeal from the judgment of Tobias J. of the Superior Court of Justice sitting as a Summary Conviction Appeal Court on appeal from the judgment of Caney J. convicting and sentencing the appellant, a young person. ENDORSEMENT [1] The panel heard this matter on May 5, 1999. During the course of the argument, a question arose as to whether this matter was properly before us. [2] The appellant was convicted by Caney J. in the Ontario Court (Provincial Division) of assault and assault causing bodily harm. He received a disposition of 12 months probation and 100 hours of community service. He then appealed to the Summary Conviction Appeal Court and Tobias J. dismissed his appeal. He now applies for leave to appeal to this court and, in the event that leave is granted, he appeals conviction and sentence. [3] During the course of the argument in this court, a question arose as to whether the court had jurisdiction. It appeared that, on an examination of the record, the Crown may have proceeded by indictment, in which case the appeal would have been directly to this court as of right. The court reserved its decision in order to give counsel an opportunity to investigate the matter further. We have now been advised by counsel for the appellant that this matter should have proceeded as an indictable appeal. The Crown joins with him in inviting the court to quash the appeal. [4] No decision has been made on the merits of this appeal. For jurisdictional reasons, the appeal is quashed. Signed: “G.D. Finlayson J.A.” “K.M. Weiler J.A.” “Louise Charron J.A.”