SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Between:
Michel Strecko
Appellant
and
Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent
Official English Translation
Coram : Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Cromwell JJ.
Reasons for Judgment:
(para. 1)
LeBel J. (Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Cromwell JJ. concurring)
R. v. Strecko, 2009 SCC 2, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 64
Michel Strecko Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Strecko
Neutral citation: 2009 SCC 2.
2009: January 14.
Present: Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Cromwell JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec
Criminal law — Extortion — Acquittal — Court of Appeal substituting conviction — Substitution justified.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal, 2008 QCCA 871, J.E. 2008-1069, [2008] SOQUIJ AZ-50491225, [2008] J.Q. no 3837 (QL), 2008 CarswellQue 3773, setting aside the accused’s acquittal and entering a conviction. Appeal dismissed, Fish and Cromwell JJ. dissenting.
Marie‑Hélène Giroux and Clément Monterosso, for the appellant.
Harry Pierre‑Étienne and Michel Pennou, for the respondent.
English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by
1LeBel J. — The majority of the Court consider that the trial judge drew the necessary findings from the evidence and that the substitution of a conviction for the acquittal was justified in the circumstances. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Fish and Cromwell JJ., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal in part to order a new trial.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Monterosso Giroux, Montréal.
Solicitor for the respondent: Poursuites criminelles et pénales du Québec, Montréal.
