R. v. W. (A.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 51
A. W. Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. W. (A.)
1995: November 10.
Present: La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario
Criminal law ‑‑ Trial ‑‑ Procedure ‑‑ Evidence ‑‑ Trial judge intervening extensively in examination of witnesses ‑‑ Whether or not inadmissible expressions of opinion sufficiently prejudicial to render trial unfair.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1994), 1994 CanLII 218 (ON CA), 94 C.C.C. (3d) 441, 75 O.A.C. 130, dismissing an appeal from conviction by Dandie J. Appeal allowed, Gonthier J. dissenting.
Brian H. Greenspan and Sharon E. Lavine, for the appellant.
Ian R. Smith, for the respondent.
//La Forest J.//
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
1La Forest J. ‑‑ The majority is of the view that the appeal should be allowed for the reasons given by the dissenting judge, Brooke J.A. in the Court of Appeal (1994), 1994 CanLII 218 (ON CA), 94 C.C.C. (3d) 441, 75 O.A.C. 130. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the conviction is set aside and a new trial is ordered. Gonthier J., dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal for the reasons of Arbour J.A.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Greenspan, Humphrey, Toronto.
Solicitor for the respondent: The Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto.