R. v. Fatemi
The Crown conceded that the trial judge made an error of law which necessitated a new trial, and the Court accepted that concession and ordered a new trial.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C42178
- Parties
- Appellant: Majid Fatemi; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 2 November 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Conviction (heard and Endorsed)
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; new trial ordered
- Legal Topics
- Conviction Appeal, New Trial, Trial Judge Error, Prosecutorial Discretion
- 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
Majid Fatemi
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Conviction (heard and Endorsed)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred in law
- 2 Whether the error necessitates a new trial
- 3 Whether the Crown should proceed with a new trial given the nature of the charge and the evidence
Ratio Decidendi
The Crown conceded that the trial judge made an error of law which necessitated a new trial, and the Court accepted that concession and ordered a new trial.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; new trial ordered
Orders
- New trial ordered
- Matter remitted for new trial
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Fatemi Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2004-11-02 Docket numbers C42178 Judges Weiler, Karen Merle Magnuson; Sharpe, Robert J.; Blair, Robert Ashley Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20041102 DOCKET: C42178 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – MAJID FATEMI (Appellant) BEFORE: WEILER, SHARPE and BLAIR JJ.A. COUNSEL: Majid Fatemi the appellant in person Shawn Porter for the respondent HEARD & ENDORSED: October 26, 2004 On appeal from the order of Justice Bruno Cavion of the Ontario Court of Justice dated May 27, 2004 dismissing an appeal from the conviction entered by Justice of the Peace G. Lau dated September 5, 2003. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The Crown concedes that the trial judge erred in law and that error necessitates a new trial. Given the nature of the charge and the evidence, we would hope that the Crown would not proceed with a new trial.