Court of Appeal

Decision Information

R. v. Xidos

Court Court of Appeal
Date 2000-04-13
Citation 2000 NSCA 52
Docket CAC 160900
Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Roscoe, Elizabeth A. (Honourable Justice) (CA); Bateman, Nancy J. (Honourable Justice) (CA); Chipman, David (Honourable Justice)
Document Type Library Sheet
Relations Decision - R. v. Xidos - 2000 NSCA 52 - 2000-04-13 - Decision

Decision Content

CASE NO.                                                     VOL. NO.                                           PAGE

 

JOHN XIDOS                                    - and ‑                        HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

 

Appellant                                                                                           Respondent

 

C.A.C. No. 160900                                       Halifax                                   ROSCOE, J.A.

    (Orally)

 

                                              [Cite as: R. v. Xidos, 2000 NSCA 52]

 

 

 

APPEAL HEARD:                                       April 13, 2000

 

JUDGMENT DELIVERED:                       April 13, 2000

 

WRITTEN RELEASE OF ORAL:             April 17, 2000

 

SUBJECT:                                       Income Tax Act, Charter, s. 7, s. 8 , Summary Conviction Appeal

 

SUMMARY:              The appellant was convicted in Provincial Court of three counts of                                     failure to comply with a notice to produce records. His appeal to                              the Summary Conviction Appeal Court was dismissed.

 

ISSUE:                       Did the Summary Conviction Appeal judge err in dismissing the                  appeal?

 

RESULT:                  The appellant failed to raise a question of law. Leave to appeal denied.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT’S JUDGMENT.  QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE JUDGMENT, NOT FROM THIS COVER SHEET.  THE FULL COURT JUDGMENT CONSISTS OF 2 PAGES.

 

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.