Creusot, Re, (1987) 62 Sask.R. 112 (ProvCt)
| Judge | Henning, P.C.J. |
| Court | Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada) |
| Case Date | November 16, 1987 |
| Jurisdiction | Saskatchewan |
| Citations | (1987), 62 Sask.R. 112 (ProvCt) |
Creusot, Re (1987), 62 Sask.R. 112 (ProvCt)
MLB headnote and full text
Application for Order of Prohibition of Possession of Firearm, Ammunition or Explosive Substance
Re Louis Creusot
Indexed As: Creusot, Re
Saskatchewan Provincial Court
Henning, P.C.J.
November 16, 1987.
Summary:
An application was made to the court for an order prohibiting Creusot from possessing a firearm, ammunition or explosive substance. A hearing was ordered pursuant to s. 98(6) of the Criminal Code. Prior to the trial Creusot asked for a ruling on whether hearsay evidence was admissible on an application under s. 98 of the Code.
The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that hearsay evidence was not admissible in hearings under s. 98 of the Code.
Criminal Law - Topic 5799
Punishments (sentence) - Prohibition orders - Respecting firearms - Hearing - Evidence - Hearsay - A hearing was ordered under s. 98(6) of the Criminal Code in support of an order prohibiting Creusot from possessing a firearm, ammunition or explosive substance - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that hearsay evidence was not admissible in hearings under s. 98 of the Criminal Code.
Statutes Noticed:
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 98 [paras. 3, 6, 7]; sect. 98(3) [para. 13]; sect. 98(6) [paras. 12, 14]; sect. 104 [para. 7]; sect. 104(3) [para. 4]; sect. 104(6) [para. 13]; sect. 745 [para. 9].
Counsel:
D. Rayner, for the Crown;
E.F.A. Merchant, for Merchant.
This application was heard before Henning, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on November 16, 1987:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R. v. Clymore (C.R.) et al., [1992] B.C.T.C. Uned. 812 (SC)
...admissible in a reference hearing under s.98(7). In R. v. Linder (1980), 5 W.C.B. 86 (Ont. Co.Ct.) and most recently, in Re Creusot (1987), 62 Sask. R. 112 (Sask. Prov. Ct.), hearsay was ruled inadmissible in an application hearing under s. 98(6). In Anderson, supra, Lane Co.Ct. J. , in an ......
-
R. v. Zeolkowski, (1989) 95 N.R. 149 (SCC)
...C.C.C.(2d) 483 (B.C. Co. Ct.), folld. [para. 14]. R. v. Linder (1980), 5 W.C.B. 86 (Ont. Co. Ct.), not folld. [para. 14]. Creusot, Re (1987), 62 Sask.R. 112 (Prov. Ct.), not folld. [para. Eccles v. Bourque et al., [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739; 3 N.R. 259, refd to. [para. 16]. R. v. Collins, [1987] 1......
-
R. v. Zeolkowski, (1989) 58 Man.R.(2d) 63 (SCC)
...483 (B.C. Co. Ct.), folld. [para. 14]. R. v. Linder (1980), 5 W.C.B. 86 (Ont. Co. Ct.), not folld. [para. 14]. Creusot, Re (1987), 62 Sask. R. 112 (Prov. Ct.), not folld. [para. Eccles v. Bourque et al., [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739; 3 N.R. 259, refd to. [para. 16]. R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 26......
-
R. v. Clymore (C.R.) et al., [1992] B.C.T.C. Uned. 812 (SC)
...admissible in a reference hearing under s.98(7). In R. v. Linder (1980), 5 W.C.B. 86 (Ont. Co.Ct.) and most recently, in Re Creusot (1987), 62 Sask. R. 112 (Sask. Prov. Ct.), hearsay was ruled inadmissible in an application hearing under s. 98(6). In Anderson, supra, Lane Co.Ct. J. , in an ......
-
R. v. Zeolkowski, (1989) 95 N.R. 149 (SCC)
...C.C.C.(2d) 483 (B.C. Co. Ct.), folld. [para. 14]. R. v. Linder (1980), 5 W.C.B. 86 (Ont. Co. Ct.), not folld. [para. 14]. Creusot, Re (1987), 62 Sask.R. 112 (Prov. Ct.), not folld. [para. Eccles v. Bourque et al., [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739; 3 N.R. 259, refd to. [para. 16]. R. v. Collins, [1987] 1......
-
R. v. Zeolkowski, (1989) 58 Man.R.(2d) 63 (SCC)
...483 (B.C. Co. Ct.), folld. [para. 14]. R. v. Linder (1980), 5 W.C.B. 86 (Ont. Co. Ct.), not folld. [para. 14]. Creusot, Re (1987), 62 Sask. R. 112 (Prov. Ct.), not folld. [para. Eccles v. Bourque et al., [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739; 3 N.R. 259, refd to. [para. 16]. R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 26......