R. v. Vaduva
The court denied leave because the proposed appeal merely re-argued factual issues rejected below and did not raise questions of law that transcend the case or affect the administration of criminal justice; established principles in R. v. R.(R.) apply to deny leave.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2011 ONCA 427
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty The Queen; Appellant: Sorin Vaduva
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 3 June 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal at Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal denied.
- Legal Topics
- Unreasonable Verdict, Insufficiency of Reasons, Leave to Appeal, Standard of Review
- 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
Sorin Vaduva
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal at Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the verdict was unreasonable
- 2 Whether the trial judge's reasons were insufficient
- 3 Whether the issues are questions of law or mixed fact and law
Ratio Decidendi
The court denied leave because the proposed appeal merely re-argued factual issues rejected below and did not raise questions of law that transcend the case or affect the administration of criminal justice; established principles in R. v. R.(R.) apply to deny leave.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal denied.
Orders
- Leave to appeal denied.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Vaduva Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2011-06-03 Neutral citation 2011 ONCA 427 Docket numbers C52054 Judges Blair, Robert Ashley; Watt, David; Epstein, Gloria Jean Subject Criminal Decision Content CITATION: R. v. Vaduva, 2011 ONCA 427 DATE: 20110602 DOCKET: C52054 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Blair, Watt and Epstein JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty The Queen Respondent and Sorin Vaduva Appellant Edward Conway, for the appellant Peter Scrutton, for the respondent Heard: June 1, 2011 On appeal from the judgment of Justice James E. McNamara of the Superior Court date April 8, 2010. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] As we view this appeal it is essentially an attempt to re-argue factual issues that were argued and rejected in both courts below. Mr. Conway submits that “unreasonable verdict” and “insufficiency of reasons” are questions of law and form the basis of Mr. Vaduva’s proposed appeal. In the context of this case, however, they are not questions of law that give rise to any issues that transcend the boundaries of this appeal. Even if the appeal raises questions of law, as opposed to questions of mixed fact and law, or the re-argument of facts, this is precisely the kind of case that the principles in R. v. R.(R.) (2008), 90 O.R. (3d) 641 (C.A.) were developed to meet. It is questionable whether the appeal involves questions of law alone, but even if it does, they do not bear on the general administration of criminal justice, as the principles of law are well established. [2] Leave to appeal is denied.