Court File and Parties

Citation: R. v. Dadshani, 2009 ONCA 212

Date: 2009-03-06

Docket: C48475

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Moldaver, MacFarland and Epstein JJ.A.

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen Appellant

and

Tawab Dadshani and Tarik Echrif Respondents

Counsel:

Troy Harrison, for the appellant Louis P. Strezos, amicus curiae, for the respondent Dadshani Joseph Di Luca, amicus curiae, for the respondent Echrif J. Stanley Jenkins, for the intervenor Ontario Legal Aid (Toronto)

Heard and endorsed: March 5, 2009

On appeal from the order of Justice Colin McKinnon of the Superior Court of Justice dated February 8, 2008.

Appeal Book Endorsement

[1] Despite Mr. Harrison’s able argument, we have not been persuaded that this is a case in which leave to appeal should be granted.

[2] The issue raised in the proposed appeal has been resolved as between the parties and the appeal is therefore moot. While we acknowledge that the proposed appeal nonetheless raises arguable issues, they are not evasive of review. Moreover, this court’s decision in R. v. Peterman remains the law of this Province. As well, the motion judge made it clear in his reasons that he endorsed as “wise” the policy of the Legal Aid Plan to restrict choice of counsel to the major centres in which accused persons are to be tried; that this case was not to be taken as opening the floodgates for persons charged with first degree murder to choose counsel from outside of the centres in which they are charged and that his decision very much rested on the particular and unique circumstances of this case.

[3] For these reasons, leave to appeal is denied.