R. v. Guttman, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 363, 2001 SCC 8
Alan Guttman and Werner Patek Appellants
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Guttman
Neutral citation: 2001 SCC 8.
2001: February 21.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and L’Heureux‑Dubé, Gonthier, Major, Bastarache, Arbour and LeBel JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec
Criminal law – Appeal -- Question of law -- No error at trial giving rise to Crown appeal under s. 676(1)(a) of Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.
Cases Cited
Referred to: R. v. B. (G.), 1990 115 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 57; R. v. Morin, 1992 40 (SCC), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 286.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 676(1)(a).
APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal (2000), 2000 9829 (QC CA), 145 C.C.C. (3d) 81, [2000] Q.J. No. 609 (QL), J.E. 2000-679, allowing the Crown’s appeal from the accused’s acquittal. Appeal allowed, L’Heureux-Dubé J. dissenting.
Christian Desrosiers, for the appellants.
Claude Chartrand and Henri-Pierre LaBrie, for the respondent.
English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by
1Arbour J. – We are of the view that the trial judge did not commit any error of law that would give rise to a Crown appeal under s. 676(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, and that the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in substituting its own assessment of the facts for that of the trial judge.
2The trial judge correctly directed himself in law and conducted a detailed examination of the evidence. His extensive reasons show that he considered the evidence in its totality, assessed the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before him in order to arrive at findings of fact that were not unreasonable. His analysis does not reveal any error within the meaning of R. v. B. (G.), 1990 115 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 57, and R. v. Morin, 1992 40 (SCC), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 286.
3Accordingly the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the acquittal of the appellants is restored. Madame Justice L’Heureux-Dubé, dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal for the reasons given by Chamberland J.A. in the Court of Appeal.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant Guttman: Morneau, Roy, L’Écuyer, La Leggia & Lamarche, Montréal.
Solicitors for the appellant Patek: Desrosiers, Turcotte, Marchand, Montréal; Girouard, Peris, Pappas, Sutton, Prihoda, Dickson & Cherbaka, Montréal.
Solicitor for the respondent: The Attorney General’s Prosecutor, Longueuil.
