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), 2008 ONCA 497, 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.