Court of Appeal for Ontario

CITATION: R. v. Gullins, 2010 ONCA 146

DATE: 20100226

DOCKET: C50811

Before: Blair, Juriansz and Epstein JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty The Queen

Appellant

and

Paul Edward Gullins

Respondent

Counsel: Bradley J. Greenshields, for the appellant Jonathan Shime and Corie Langdon, for the respondent

Heard & released orally: February 22, 2010

On appeal from the order of Justice Barry MacDougall of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 8, 2009.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The Crown seeks leave to appeal from the order of B. MacDougall J. allowing the respondent’s appeal from his conviction on two counts of sexual assault and directing a new trial. The Crown had proceeded by way of summary conviction proceedings.

[2] In this somewhat unusual situation, the respondent concedes that the proposed appeal involves a question, or questions of law alone, and the Crown concedes that the proposed appeal does not raise an issue of broader significance to the administration of justice beyond this particular case. The Crown argues, however, that leave should be granted on the second branch of the test as set out in R. v. R.R., (2008) 2008 ONCA 497, 234 C.C.C. (3d) 463 at paras. 27 & 34-37 namely, that the merits of the proposed appeal appear very strong. The respondent contends that they are not.

[3] Having regard to the fact that the proposed appeal admittedly raises no issue of broader significance to the administration of justice, we are not persuaded in the circumstances of this case that leave is warranted on the issue of the merits alone.

[4] Leave to appeal is therefore denied.

“R.A. Blair J.A.”

“R.G. Juriansz J.A.”

“Gloria Epstein J.A.”