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.