SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

Citation: R. v. R.G.L., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 288, 2005 SCC 18

Date: 20050414

Docket: 30376

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.

File No.: 30376.

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

1 The 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.