SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Martin Jacques Dionne Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Major, Bastarache, LeBel, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.
Reasons for judgment: (paras. 1 to 2)
Fish J. (McLachlin C.J. and Major, Bastarache, LeBel, Abella and Charron JJ. concurring)
R v. Dionne, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 665, 2005 SCC 29
Martin Jacques Dionne Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Dionne
Neutral citation: 2005 SCC 29.
2005: May 19.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Major, Bastarache, LeBel, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia
Criminal law — Evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Recent possession.
APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (Lambert, Mackenzie and Oppal JJ.A.) (2004), 202 B.C.A.C. 1, 331 W.A.C. 1, 186 C.C.C. (3d) 376, 22 C.R. (6th) 288, [2004] B.C.J. No. 1181 (QL), 2004 BCCA 274, upholding the accused’s convictions for robbery and possession of stolen goods. Appeal dismissed.
Gabriel Chand, for the appellant.
Kenneth D. Madsen, for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
1Fish J. — The appellant, in his Notice of Appeal, raises two questions of law:
(1) “was the trial judge permitted to rely on the doctrine of recent possession in the circumstances of this case?”
(2) “did the trial judge appropriately apply the test for determining guilt in a case based solely on circumstantial evidence?”
For the reasons given by the majority in the Court of Appeal, we are all satisfied that both grounds are without merit.
2The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Rankin & Bond, Vancouver.
Solicitor for the respondent: Ministry of the Attorney General, Victoria.
