R. v. Whitney
Leave to appeal was refused because the legal question lacked significance beyond the case, the arguable challenge to the reasonableness of the conviction was not strong, and the sentence (12 months probation, imposed three years earlier) did not engage significant liberty interests.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2009 ONCA 780
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Lawrence Whitney
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 6 November 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Leave to Appeal Application (refused)
- Outcome
- leave to appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Reasonableness of Conviction, Sentence, Probation
- 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
Lawrence Whitney
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Leave to Appeal Application (refused)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted
- 2 Whether the conviction was unreasonable
- 3 Whether the sentence engages significant liberty interests
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was refused because the legal question lacked significance beyond the case, the arguable challenge to the reasonableness of the conviction was not strong, and the sentence (12 months probation, imposed three years earlier) did not engage significant liberty interests.
Court Disposition
leave to appeal refused
Orders
- Leave to appeal refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Whitney Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2009-11-06 Neutral citation 2009 ONCA 780 Docket numbers C48039 Judges Doherty, David H.; Simmons, Janet M.; Lang, Susan Elizabeth Subject Criminal Decision Content CITATION: R. v. Whitney, 2009 ONCA 780 DATE: 20091105 DOCKET: C48039 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Doherty, Simmons and Lang JJ.A. BETWEEN: Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Lawrence Whitney Appellant Candice Suter, for the appellant Erin Dann, for the respondent Heard: November 5, 2009 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Robert Del Frate of the Superior Court of Justice dated November 2, 2007. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] We are satisfied that this is not a case for leave to appeal. It is conceded that the question of law has no significance beyond this case. The question of law, that is the reasonableness of the conviction, while perhaps arguable, is not strong. The sentence imposed (12 months probation three years ago) does not engage significant liberty interests. Leave to appeal refused.