SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Between:
Marc Hazout
Appellant
and
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Fish and Rothstein JJ.
Reasons for Judgment:
(para. 1)
The Court
R. v. Hazout, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 361, 2006 SCC 42
Marc Hazout Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Hazout
Neutral citation: 2006 SCC 42.
2006: June 22; 2006: October 5.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Fish and Rothstein JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario
Criminal law — Appeals to Supreme Court of Canada — Appeal as of right — No dissent on question of law alone — Appeal quashed.
Held: The appeal should be quashed.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46, s. 691(1)(a).
APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (Weiler, Simmons and Gillese JJ.A.) (2005), 2005 CanLII 30050 (ON CA), 199 C.C.C. (3d) 474, 201 O.A.C. 235, [2005] O.J. No. 3550 (QL), upholding the accused’s convictions. Appeal quashed.
Marie Henein and Jennifer Gleitman, for the appellant.
Robert Gattrell, for the respondent.
The following is the judgment delivered by
1The Court — We are of the view that the dissent relied upon by the appellant as the foundation of his appeal as of right under s. 691(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, cannot be construed as a dissent on a question of law alone. Accordingly, this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal without leave, which in this case was not sought. The appeal is quashed.
Appeal quashed.
Solicitors for the appellant: Henein & Associates, Toronto.
Solicitor for the respondent: Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto.