R. v. Bourgeois, 2017 SCC 49
| Jurisdiction | Federal Jurisdiction (Canada) |
| Judge | Moldaver, Michael J.; Gascon, Clément; Côté, Suzanne; Brown, Russell; Rowe, Malcolm |
| Citation | 2017 SCC 49,[2017] 2 SCR 287 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
| Date | 16 October 2017 |
| Docket Number | 37461 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
5 practice notes
-
R v Holdsworth, 2019 ABQB 856
...display palpable and overriding error: Church; HL v Canada (Attorney General) at para 4; R v Bourgeois, 2017 ABCA 32 at para 12, aff’d 2017 SCC 49. Further, a trial judge is not required to give reasons mentioning every possible item or conflict in the evidence: R v M(RE), 2008 SCC 51 at pa......
-
R v Walsh, 2018 ABQB 377
...palpable and overriding error (H.L. v Canada (Attorney General) 2005 SCC 25 at para 4; R v Bourgeois, 2017 ABCA 32 at para 12, aff’d 2017 SCC 49). [7] As regard to a Trial Judge’s misapprehension of evidence, appellate intervention is only warranted if the misapprehension of evidence goes “......
-
Summaries Sunday: Supreme Advocacy
...was unreasonable and tainted the other findings of the trial judge.” Criminal Law: Sexual Assault R. v. Bourgeois, 2017 SCC 49;2017 ABCA 32 Justice Moldaver: “This appeal comes to us as of right from the Court of Appeal of Alberta. A majority of the court concluded that there was no basis f......
-
R v Pellis, 2020 ABCA 181
...discrepancy: R v REM, 2008 SCC 51, paras 16-21, [2008] 3 SCR 3; R v Bourgeois, 2017 ABCA 32, para 14, [2017] 5 WWR 455, aff’d 2017 SCC 49, [2017] 2 SCR Misapprehension of evidence [22] Mr Pellis points out that the trial judge found: Mr. Pell......
Request a trial to view additional results
4 cases
-
R v Holdsworth, 2019 ABQB 856
...display palpable and overriding error: Church; HL v Canada (Attorney General) at para 4; R v Bourgeois, 2017 ABCA 32 at para 12, aff’d 2017 SCC 49. Further, a trial judge is not required to give reasons mentioning every possible item or conflict in the evidence: R v M(RE), 2008 SCC 51 at pa......
-
R v Walsh, 2018 ABQB 377
...palpable and overriding error (H.L. v Canada (Attorney General) 2005 SCC 25 at para 4; R v Bourgeois, 2017 ABCA 32 at para 12, aff’d 2017 SCC 49). [7] As regard to a Trial Judge’s misapprehension of evidence, appellate intervention is only warranted if the misapprehension of evidence goes “......
-
R v Pellis, 2020 ABCA 181
...discrepancy: R v REM, 2008 SCC 51, paras 16-21, [2008] 3 SCR 3; R v Bourgeois, 2017 ABCA 32, para 14, [2017] 5 WWR 455, aff’d 2017 SCC 49, [2017] 2 SCR Misapprehension of evidence [22] Mr Pellis points out that the trial judge found: Mr. Pell......
-
R. v. Falconer and Falconer, 2020 NBQB 70
...removal of the niqab. [57] See, also: R. v. Bourgeois 2017 ABCA 32 (A.C.A.) (aff’d, 2017 SCC 49 (S.C.C.) at paras. 20-21 and R. v. Cain 2017 NSCA 96 (N.S.C.A.). [58] In R. v. McIntyre 2016......