R. v. Karson
The Court refused leave to appeal because it agreed with the trial judge's reasons and declined to entertain Charter issues first raised on appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2009 ONCA 164
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Karl Karson
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 23 February 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction; Application for Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal refused.
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Appeal Against Conviction, Charter Issues Raised on Appeal
- 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
Karl Karson
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction; Application for Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted
- 2 Whether the Court will entertain Charter issues raised for the first time on appeal
- 3 Whether the trial judge's reasons disposed of the issues raised on appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The Court refused leave to appeal because it agreed with the trial judge's reasons and declined to entertain Charter issues first raised on appeal.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal refused.
Orders
- Leave to appeal refused.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Karson Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2009-02-23 Neutral citation 2009 ONCA 164 Docket numbers C48654 Judges Rosenberg, Marc; Sharpe, Robert J.; Juriansz, Russell G. Subject Criminal Decision Content CITATION: R. v. Karson, 2009 ONCA 164 DATE: 20090220 DOCKET: C48654 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Rosenberg, Sharpe and Juriansz JJ.A. BETWEEN: Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Karl Karson Appellant Edward L. Burlew for the appellant Nadia Thomas for the respondent Heard and endorsed February 18, 2009 On appeal from conviction by Justice Robert Clark of the Superior Court of Justice dated March 17, 2008. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] We agree with the reasons of Clark J. which fully answer the issues raised in this Court. We would not entertain the Charter issues that are first raised here. [2] Leave to appeal is refused.