SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Between:
Her Majesty the Queen Appellant
v.
R.L. Respondent
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.
Reasons for judgment: (para. 1)
The Court
R. v. R.G.L., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 288, 2005 SCC 18
Her Majesty The Queen Appellant
v.
R.L. Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. R.G.L.
Neutral citation: 2005 SCC 18.
2005: February 11; 2005: April 14.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario
Criminal law — Appeal — Appeal as of right — Dissent in Court of Appeal not raising question of law — Appeal quashed.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 693(1)(a).
APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (Weiler, Laskin and Feldman JJ.A.) (2004), 2004 32143 (ON CA), 186 O.A.C. 355, 185 C.C.C. (3d) 55, [2004] O.J. No. 1944 (QL), setting aside the accused’s convictions and ordering a new trial. Appeal quashed.
Riun Shandler and Benita Wassenaar, for the appellant.
Paul Burstein, for the respondent.
The following is the judgment delivered by
1The Court — We are of the view that the dissent in the Court of Appeal does not raise an issue of law, as required by s. 693(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46. Accordingly, the appeal is quashed.
Appeal quashed.
Solicitor for the appellant: Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto.
Solicitors for the respondent: Burstein, Unger, Toronto.
