Background
The Court of Appeal for Ontario released this brief decision in R. v. Minassian, 2026 ONCA 806, on November 6, 2026. The docket number is COA-23-CR-1304. His Majesty the King was the respondent, and Alek Minassian was the appellant. The matter was heard in writing. The panel was Fairburn A.C.J.O., Trotter J.A., and Copeland J.A. The decision is classified in the court’s criminal collection and is headed “Reasons for Decision,” but its substantive content consists of only two numbered paragraphs.
The first paragraph identifies the procedural step that brought the appeal before the court for this disposition: the appellant filed a Notice of Abandonment of his appeal against his convictions. The court states that the document was witnessed by his appellate counsel. It then records the panel’s satisfaction that the Notice of Abandonment was valid. Those statements are the entirety of the court’s explanation concerning the Notice.
The public decision does not describe the underlying prosecution, the convictions, the evidence at trial, the sentence imposed, or the grounds that had been advanced on appeal. It does not set out a factual narrative or reproduce the Notice of Abandonment. Nor does it explain the appellant’s reasons for abandoning the appeal. Accordingly, this summary is confined to the procedural event and disposition expressly recorded in the decision; it does not treat the document as a ruling on the merits of the convictions or on any issue that might otherwise have been raised in the appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The court made one express finding concerning the abandonment document: “We are satisfied that the Notice of Abandonment is valid.” That finding followed its statements that the appellant had filed the Notice in relation to his appeal against his convictions and that appellate counsel had witnessed the document. The decision does not identify a statutory provision, rule, legal test, or precedent, and it does not provide a general explanation of when an abandonment notice will be valid. The witnessing by appellate counsel is a fact recited in this case, not a separately articulated universal condition announced by the court.
The disposition is stated in full in the second paragraph: “The appeal is dismissed as abandoned.” The decision therefore resolves the appeal through abandonment rather than through an expressed assessment of the convictions or any appellate grounds. No other disposition appears in the text. The court does not discuss a sentence appeal, order a new trial, vary a conviction, or address costs. It would be inaccurate to characterize those absent matters as having been decided.
The signatures appearing after the disposition are “Fairburn A.C.J.O.,” “Gary Trotter J.A.,” and “J. Copeland J.A.” The judgment line identifies the panel as Fairburn A.C.J.O., Trotter and Copeland JJ.A. The written reasons contain no separate concurring or dissenting reasons and no additional analysis beyond the validity finding and dismissal. The limited length of the reasons should not be supplemented with assumptions about sealed material, unpublished reasoning, or the parties’ motivations.
Key Takeaways
- Alek Minassian filed a Notice of Abandonment of his appeal against his convictions, and the document was witnessed by his appellate counsel.
- The panel—Fairburn A.C.J.O., Trotter J.A., and Copeland J.A.—was satisfied that the Notice was valid.
- The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal as abandoned in a matter heard in writing.
- The decision supplies no merits analysis, factual account of the underlying case, discussion of grounds of appeal, or general test for abandonment.
Why It Matters
The decision’s practical significance is confined to what it expressly records: this conviction appeal ended by dismissal as abandoned after the court accepted the filed Notice as valid. It documents the parties, docket, written hearing, panel, and disposition, providing a precise procedural endpoint for this appeal.
It should not be cited as a merits determination or as a general pronouncement that a notice witnessed by appellate counsel will necessarily be accepted in every case. The court made a case-specific validity finding and gave no broader reasons. Public reasoning on any underlying issues is unavailable in this decision because none is included; readers seeking the facts of the prosecution, the convictions, or possible appellate arguments will not find them here.