R. v. Nijjar, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 320

Baj Singh Nijjar Appellant

v.

Her Majesty The Queen Respondent

Indexed as: R. v. Nijjar

File No.: 25987.

1997: February 27.

Present: Cory, McLachlin, Major, Bastarache and Binnie JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia

Criminal law ‑‑ Trial ‑‑ Charge to jury ‑‑ Strong evidence ‑‑ Suggested changes to directions would not change result ‑‑ No substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice ‑‑ Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑46, s. 686(1)(b)(iii).

Statutes and Regulations Cited

Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑46, s. 686(1)(b)(iii) [am. 1991, c. 43, s. 9 (Sch., item 8)].

APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (1997), 91 B.C.A.C. 185, 148 W.A.C. 185, [1997] B.C.J. No. 834 (QL), dismissing an appeal from conviction by McKinnon J. sitting with jury. Appeal dismissed.

Danny Markovitz and Bruce P. Cran, for the appellant.

John M. Gordon, for the respondent.

//Cory J.//

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

[1] Cory J. ‑‑ Assuming, without deciding that there were errors in the charge in this case, the evidence adduced as to planning and deliberation was so strong and so overwhelming that the result would inevitably have been the same if the directions suggested by the appellant had been given. It is therefore appropriate to apply the provisions of s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, and the appeal is therefore dismissed.

Judgment accordingly.

Solicitors for the appellant: Hogan & Company, Vancouver.

Solicitor for the respondent: The Attorney General of British Columbia, Vancouver.