Court of Appeal for Ontario
Date: 2023-06-07 Docket: COA-23-CR-0249
van Rensburg, Benotto and Copeland JJ.A.
BETWEEN
His Majesty the King Respondent
and
Gregory Amadin Asemota Appellant
Counsel: Gregory Amadin Asemota, acting in person Naomi Lutes, appearing as duty counsel Jeffrey Wyngaarden, for the respondent
Heard and released orally: June 5, 2023
On application for leave to appeal from the order of Justice Robert F. Goldstein of the Superior Court of Justice, dated February 15, 2023, dismissing the appeal from the summary conviction entered by Justice Joseph W. Bovard of the Ontario Court of Justice, dated March 10, 2020.
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] The appellant was convicted of assault causing bodily harm and breach of recognizance. He appealed to the Superior Court of Justice, raising allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. His summary conviction appeal was dismissed by Goldstein J. The appellant now seeks leave to bring a further appeal to this court.
[2] In the summary conviction appeal, Goldstein J. rejected the appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Goldstein J. found that the appellant had failed to establish most of the facts on which his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were based. He further found that there was no merit to the allegations that the appellant’s trial counsel was incompetent or that there was a miscarriage of justice. The appellant asks this court to revisit these factual findings.
[3] The threshold test for leave to appeal to this court on a summary conviction matter is high because it involves a request for a second appeal: R. v. R.R., 2008 ONCA 497, 90 O.R. (3d) 641. The proposed appeal does not raise any issue of law alone. Rather, it raises issues of fact and credibility. Further, there is no issue in the appellant’s proposed appeal that has significance for the administration of justice and there is no merit to the appeal.
[4] For these reasons, leave to appeal is denied.
“K. van Rensburg J.A.”
“M.L. Benotto J.A.”
“J. Copeland J.A.”