R. v. Gray
The appeal was dismissed because the respondent filed an affidavit establishing that the required disclosure of wiretap authorizations and supporting affidavits had been made, and the appellant filed no affidavit to rebut that evidence.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C33270
- Parties
- Appellant: Shola Gray; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 12 February 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Conviction (conviction by Dyson J., November 15, 1999); Court of Appeal Hearing and Decision
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Disclosure, Wiretap Authorizations, Supporting Affidavits, Appeal Procedure
- 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
Shola Gray
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Conviction (conviction by Dyson J., November 15, 1999); Court of Appeal Hearing and Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant received proper disclosure of wiretap authorizations, supporting affidavits and related appendices
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the respondent filed an affidavit establishing that the required disclosure of wiretap authorizations and supporting affidavits had been made, and the appellant filed no affidavit to rebut that evidence.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Gray Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2002-02-12 Docket numbers C33270 Judges McMurtry, Roy; Rosenberg, Marc; MacPherson, James C. Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20020212 DOCKET: C33270 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) v. SHOLA GRAY (Appellant) BEFORE: McMURTRY C.J.O., ROSENBERG AND MacPHERSON JJ.A. COUNSEL: Shola Gray In Person Gregory J. Tweney For the respondent HEARD: December 21, 2001 On appeal from the conviction made by Dyson J. dated November 15, 1999. ENDORSEMENT [1] This appeal was heard on December 21, 2001 and our decision was reserved in order to give the appellant and the respondent until January 23, 2002 to file affidavits regarding the issue of crown disclosure. [2] An affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent but no affidavit from the appellant was received. The affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent indicates that the appellant did have the relevant disclosure of the wiretap authorizations, supporting affidavits and related appendices. [3] In our view, the only issue in this appeal that might have merit is the issue as to whether the appellant had proper disclosure. [4] In the result, having decided that disclosure was made, the appeal is dismissed. “R. Roy McMurtry C.J.O.” “M. Rosenberg J.A. “J. C. MacPherson J.A.”