R. v. C. (D.A.), 1997 CanLII 397 (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 8

R. v. C. (D.A.), 1997 CanLII 397 (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 8

D.A.C. Appellant

v.

Her Majesty The Queen Respondent

Indexed as: R. v. C. (D.A.)

File No.: 25230.

1997: January 24.

Present: Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia

Criminal law ‑‑ Indictment ‑‑ Severance of counts ‑‑ Appellate court should interfere with exercise of trial judge’s discretion respecting severance of counts in indictment only if trial judge acted unjudicially or if ruling resulted in injustice ‑‑ Court of Appeal correct in holding that neither circumstance present here.

Cases Cited

Referred to: R. v. Litchfield, 1993 CanLII 44 (SCC), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 333.

APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (1996), 1996 CanLII 8341 (BC CA), 72 B.C.A.C. 227, 119 W.A.C. 227, 106 C.C.C. (3d) 28, dismissing the accused’s appeal from his conviction of several sexual offences. Appeal dismissed.

T. E. La Liberté, Q.C., and Kate Ker, for the appellant.

Bruce Johnstone, for the respondent.

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

1Sopinka J. ‑‑ This is an appeal as of right. In R. v. Litchfield, 1993 CanLII 44 (SCC), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 333, this Court held that an appellate court would only interfere with the exercise of a trial judge’s discretion with respect to severance of counts in an indictment if the trial judge acted unjudicially or the ruling resulted in an injustice. We agree with the majority of the Court of Appeal that neither of these circumstances was present here.

2The appeal is therefore dismissed.