Supreme Court of Canada
Motion Heard: April 11, 2019 Order: April 11, 2019 Docket: 38512
Between:
Her Majesty The Queen Applicant
and
Giovanni D'Amico Respondent
Coram: Wagner C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon, Côté, Brown, Rowe and Martin JJ.
Reasons for Order: (paras. 1 to 3) The Court
R. v. D'Amico, 2019 SCC 23, [2019] 2 S.C.R. 394
Her Majesty The Queen — Applicant
v.
Giovanni D'Amico — Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. D'Amico
2019 SCC 23
File No.: 38512.
2019: April 11.
Present: Wagner C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon, Côté, Brown, Rowe and Martin JJ.
Headnote
motion to quash a notice of appeal as of right
Criminal law — Appeals — Appeals to Supreme Court of Canada — Appeal as of right — Dissent on question of law — Court of Appeal unanimous in dismissing accused's appeal from convictions — Accused filing notice of appeal as of right based on disagreement between appellate judges on point of law — Crown bringing motion to quash notice of appeal as of right — Dissent giving rise to appeal as of right is disagreement that affects result — Motion granted — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 691(1)(a).
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 691(1)(a).
Proceedings Below
MOTION to quash a notice of appeal as of right from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal (Thibault, Vauclair and Ruel JJ.A.), 2019 QCCA 77, 375 C.C.C. (3d) 1, 427 C.R.R. (2d) 116, [2019] AZ-51562974, [2019] Q.J. No. 235 (QL), 2019 CarswellQue 268 (WL Can.), affirming the convictions entered by Rheault J.C.Q., 2014 QCCQ 21006, [2014] AZ-51260923, [2014] Q.J. No. 23322 (QL), 2014 CarswellQue 14694 (WL Can.). Motion granted.
Written submissions by Maude Payette, for the applicant.
Written submissions by Alexandre Bien-Aimé and Philipe G. Knerr, for the respondent.
Order
The following is the order delivered by
1The Court — The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the motion to quash is granted.
2The motion to quash is granted.
3A dissent within the meaning of s. 691(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, means a disagreement which affects the result. In this case, Vauclair J.A.'s disagreement does not go to the result and is better characterized as a concurring opinion or an opinion concurring in the result.
Motion granted.
Solicitor for the applicant: Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, Montréal.
Solicitors for the respondent: Shadley Bien-Aimé, Montréal.