R. v. Ellis

R. v. Ellis

Because the appellant did not challenge the expert report at the Board hearing, did not allege ineffective assistance of counsel, and did not file fresh evidence in proper form, the Court concluded it could not say the Board's decision was unreasonable and dismissed the appeal.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2010 ONCA 205
Parties
Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Robert Ellis; Amicus Curiae: Joseph Di Luca
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal Against Disposition Order of the Ontario Review Board
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Appeal Standard of Review, Procedural Fairness, Expert Report Admissibility, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Mental Health Review Board Appeal Standard of Review Procedural Fairness Expert Report Admissibility Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

Robert Ellis

Appellant

Joseph Di Luca

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Appeal Against Disposition Order of the Ontario Review Board

  1. 1 Whether the Ontario Review Board's disposition order dated May 21, 2009 was unreasonable
  2. 2 Whether the appellant can challenge an unchallenged expert report on appeal without alleging ineffective assistance of counsel or filing fresh evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Because the appellant did not challenge the expert report at the Board hearing, did not allege ineffective assistance of counsel, and did not file fresh evidence in proper form, the Court concluded it could not say the Board's decision was unreasonable and dismissed the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Ontario Review Board disposition order dated May 21, 2009 upheld.