David Margolis

The appellant appealed as of right from a judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissing an appeal from a conviction for attempting to set fire to a dwelling-house.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal orally, finding that the dissent in the Court of Appeal did not raise a question of law.

The appellant appealed her conviction for criminal negligence causing death to the Supreme Court of Canada as of right.

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it was not a case of 'no evidence' and that the appeal was essentially an invitation to review the sufficiency of the evidence, which the Court may not do.

L'intimé a été déclaré coupable d'homicide involontaire coupable et d'avoir causé illégalement un incendie à la suite du même événement.

La Cour d'appel a appliqué le principe Kienapple pour annuler la déclaration de culpabilité relative à l'infraction secondaire.

La Cour suprême du Canada a rejeté le pourvoi de la Couronne, confirmant l'application du principe Kienapple.

The respondent was convicted of manslaughter and unlawfully setting a fire arising out of the same incident.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal applied the Kienapple principle to set aside the conviction for the secondary offence of unlawfully setting a fire.

The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the majority of the Court of Appeal that the Kienapple principle applied.