Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
La Cour d’appel de l’Ontario refuse de proroger le délai d’appel, jugeant le retard mal expliqué et l’appel proposé dépourvu de mérite.
The Ontario Court of Appeal granted the Crown’s motion to bifurcate its sentence appeal from the respondent’s conviction appeal because delay in the conviction appeal could prejudice sentencing relief.
The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal the refusal of an extension of time, finding the proposed appeal raised an important question of law with arguable merit.
The motion to extend time was dismissed because, although the applicant had bona fide intent and no prejudice was shown, none of the proposed grounds raised an arguable issue: the guilty pleas were voluntary, informed and final; allegations of ineffective counsel, judicial bias and police misconduct lacked evidentiary support; remand credit was properly applied; therefore the interests of justice did not require an extension.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because this Court previously affirmed the trial judge's finding of guilt and issued a final order remitting the matter for sentencing only; the trial judge had no jurisdiction to re-open the conviction, and any attempt to relitigate the guilt was a collateral attack barred by res judicata and the doctrine of functus officio.
Source excerpt
Application to vary the chambers order was dismissed. The Court found no error in refusing leave to appeal the costs ruling and no reasonable apprehension of bias.
The motion to extend time was dismissed because the appellant lacked credibility and a reasonable excuse for delay, his guilty pleas were shown on the evidence and psychiatric report to have been informed and voluntary so no arguable ground of miscarriage of justice was established, and the interests of justice required preservation of finality.
Source excerpt
The Court exercised its discretion under rule 33(2) to order that the leave application be heard separately in this case, rejecting the proposition of a presumption in favour of separate hearings, and concluded that given the nature of the grounds and the reticence to permit appeals of certification orders a separate hearing was justified and should be before a three-judge panel.
Source excerpt
The Yukon Court of Appeal dismissed an application to reopen a criminal appeal, holding it lacked jurisdiction after the appeal had been decided and the order entered.
The application to reopen was dismissed because the appellant did not diligently pursue the appeal, failed to file required materials (including a transcript) by the deadline and only filed after dismissal, and the underlying appeal lacked merit given the discretionary nature of the bench warrant; reopening would not serve the interests of justice.
Source excerpt
Explore more
