R. v. Xiong

R. v. Xiong Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2019-10-21 Neutral citation 2019 ONCA 813 Docket numbers C62745 Judges Rouleau, Paul S.; Trotter, Gary T.; Harvison Young, Alison Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Xiong, 2019 ONCA 813 DATE: 20191008 DOCKET: C62745 Rouleau, Trotter and Harvison Young JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Yongxi Xiong Applicant Yongxi Xiong, acting in person Michael Fawcett, for the respondent Heard: October 1, 2019 On appeal from the order of Justice David Salmers of the Superior Court of Justice, dated September 21, 2016, dismissing an appeal from the conviction entered on August 20, 2015 by Justice Joseph A. De Filippis of the Ontario Court of Justice. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The applicant was convicted of four counts of threatening his professor and his family members. The trial judge provided thorough reasons for judgment, making careful credibility findings relating to the key witnesses at trial. The trial judge was not required to resolve any significant legal issues. [2] The applicant’s appeal to the summary conviction appeal court (SCAC) was dismissed. In thorough reasons, that judge concluded that the trial judge made appropriate findings of fact and reasonable determinations of credibility. He also dismissed the applicant’s motion to adduce fresh evidence, finding that it failed to meet the applicable standard for admission. [3] The applicant now seeks leave to appeal to this court from the decision of the SCAC. [4] The applicant has not established a proper basis upon which leave to appeal should be granted. We are not persuaded that the SCAC judge made any legal errors. He made no errors in dismissing the applicant’s fresh evidence application. Moreover, the applicant has failed to persuade us that the issues he raises transcend the facts of his case; the appeal does not raise issues of significance to the administration of justice. [5] Lastly, the applicant’s attempt to adduce further fresh evidence must fail for the same reasons articulated by the SCAC judge – it is not fresh, and it would have no impact on the verdict. In this regard, we find the applicant’s complaint about trial counsel’s performance to be completely without merit. [6] The application for leave is refused.