Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: 15/13

DATE: 20140108

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: R. v. David Watt

BEFORE: Hill, J.

COUNSEL:
Dufferin Crown Attorney’s Office, for the Crown

D. Faed, for the Appellant

HEARD: January 8, 2014

Endorsement

[1] Pursuant to Criminal Proceeding Rule 40.20 (1), this appeal is said to be ready for the judicial assignment of a time estimate for the hearing of the appeal. Unfortunately, this step cannot be completed at this time.

[2] This Appellant’s Factum is unsatisfactory as it is non-compliant with Criminal Proceedings Rule 40.11(5)(b) as the “Summary of the Facts” is essentially a running series of transcript excerpts as opposed “to a concise summary of the facts relevant to the issues on appeal…” to be followed by page/line/paragraph references to the transcript.

[3] Further, the “Issues and Law” section of the Appellant’s Factum fails to contain any statement or authorities relating to the ground of appeal submitting that the sentence imposed at trial is unfit. Why does the appellant believe that appellate intervention is warranted?

[4] The Clerk of the Court shall forward this endorsement forthwith to counsel for the parties. A replacement Appellant’s Factum shall be served and filed on or before January 31, 2014 failing which the case shall be listed in Criminal Motions Court on February 10, 2014 at 10 a.m. for a determination as to why the appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in compliance with the Rules.

[5] It is implied in this direction that no Respondent’s Factum is required until a replacement Appellant’s Factum is received.

Hill, J.

Date: January 8, 2014