Supreme Court of Canada

R. v. Eklund, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 117

Date: 1980-06-24

Her Majesty The Queen Appellant;

and

Brent Harold Eklund Respondent.

1980: June 24.

Present: Martland, Ritchie, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Lamer JJ.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ALBERTA

Criminal law—Evidence—Corroboration—Charge to the jury—Absence of error of law—Powers of an appeal court—Criminal Code, s. 613(1)(a)(i) and (iii).

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta quashing the conviction of the respondent by Bracco J. of the Alberta District Court sitting with a jury on a charge of robbery. Appeal allowed and conviction restored.

M.G. Allen, for the appellant.

J.O. MacEachern, for the respondent.

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

MARTLAND J.—We are all of the opinion that the trial judge did not commit any error of law in his charge to the jury in not warning the jury of the danger of accepting the evidence of Bourassa and Cook in the absence of corroboration even if they were not found to be accomplices. The Court of Appeal viewed the charge as inadequate, but, in the absence of an error of law on the part of the trial judge, it was not entitled to allow the respondent’s appeal unless it applied either subpara. (i) or subpara. (iii) of para. (a) of subs. 613(1) of the Code. Neither of these subparagraphs was invoked.

The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the conviction is restored.

Judgment accordingly.

Solicitor for the appellant: M.G. Allen, Edmonton.

Solicitor for the respondent: J.O. MacEachern, Edmonton.