R. v. Harrison
Adjournment was properly denied because the applicant failed to obtain the transcripts and the proposed fresh evidence was irrelevant to the issues on appeal; therefore there was no basis to interfere with the convictions or sentence and the appeal is dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2007 ONCA 644
- Parties
- Applicant: Karen Harrison; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 20 September 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Determination on Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Adjournment, Fresh Evidence, Conviction Appeal, Sentence Review, Probation Variation
- 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
Karen Harrison
Applicant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Determination on Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an adjournment should be granted to obtain transcripts
- 2 Whether proposed fresh evidence is admissible/relevant on appeal
- 3 Whether there is any basis to interfere with the convictions or sentence
Ratio Decidendi
Adjournment was properly denied because the applicant failed to obtain the transcripts and the proposed fresh evidence was irrelevant to the issues on appeal; therefore there was no basis to interfere with the convictions or sentence and the appeal is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Application for adjournment dismissed
- Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Harrison Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2007-09-20 Neutral citation 2007 ONCA 644 Docket numbers C45366 Judges Rosenberg, Marc; Gillese, Eileen E.; MacFarland, Jean Louise Subject Criminal Decision Content CITATION: R. v. Harrison, 2007 ONCA 644 DATE: 20070920 DOCKET: C45366 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO ROSENBERG, GILLESE and MacFARLAND JJ.A. BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent and KAREN HARRISON Applicant Brian Snell for the appellant Susan Ficek for the respondent Heard and endorsed September 17, 2007 On appeal from conviction by Justice Peter Harris of the Ontario Court of Justice dated November 30, 2005and sentence imposed January 17, 2006. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant applied for an adjournment because she wished to obtain transcripts and adduce fresh evidence. This matter was before Simmons J.A. in August. She ordered that the matter proceed today unless the appellant took steps to deal with the transcripts and the proposed fresh evidence. She has not taken any steps to obtain the transcripts. When questioned about the proposed fresh evidence, it became apparent that this evidence would not have been relevant to any issue on the appeal. Accordingly, we dismissed the application for an adjournment. The appellant than stated she would not take part in the appeal. We have reviewed the materials and can see no basis for interfering with the convictions or the sentence. Any concerns the appellant may have with the terms of probation can be raised with the trial court on an application to vary. [2] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.