R. v. Brown
The appeal was refused because the grounds advanced merely challenged the trial judge's factual inferences about the appellant's state of mind and did not raise questions of law of significance beyond this case.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2009 ONCA 781
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Robert Brown
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 6 November 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Application for Leave to Appeal (refused)
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal refused.
- Legal Topics
- Appeal, Leave to Appeal, Trial Judge Findings, Inference of State of Mind, Conviction
- 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
Robert Brown
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for Leave to Appeal (refused)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted
- 2 Whether the trial judge erred in drawing inferences about the appellant's state of mind
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was refused because the grounds advanced merely challenged the trial judge's factual inferences about the appellant's state of mind and did not raise questions of law of significance beyond this case.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal refused.
Orders
- Leave to appeal refused.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Brown Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2009-11-06 Neutral citation 2009 ONCA 781 Docket numbers C50697 Judges Doherty, David H.; Simmons, Janet M.; Lang, Susan Elizabeth Subject Criminal Decision Content CITATION: R. v. Brown, 2009 ONCA 781 DATE: 20091105 DOCKET: C50697 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Doherty, Simmons and Lang JJ.A. BETWEEN: Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Robert Brown Appellant Robert Brown, appearing in person Robin Flumerfelt, for the respondent Heard: November 5, 2009 On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice Eberhard of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 8, 2009. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] This is not a case for leave to appeal. The arguments raised essentially challenge inferences drawn by the trial judge as to the applicant’s state of mind. These arguments do not raise questions of law and if they do, they do not raise issues of any significance beyond this case. [2] Leave to appeal is refused.