R. v. Buick (T.R.), (1991) 1 B.C.A.C. 30 (CA)

Judge:Lambert, Macfarlane and Proudfoot, JJ.A.
Court:Court of Appeal of British Columbia
Case Date:June 03, 1991
Jurisdiction:British Columbia
Citations:(1991), 1 B.C.A.C. 30 (CA)

R. v. Buick (T.R.) (1991), 1 B.C.A.C. 30 (CA);

    1 W.A.C. 30

MLB headnote and full text

Regina (respondent) v. Theodore Richard Buick (appellant)


Indexed As: R. v. Buick (T.R.)

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Lambert, Macfarlane and Proudfoot, JJ.A.

June 3, 1991.


The accused was convicted on two counts of possession of stolen goods. The accused appealed and applied to introduce new evidence on the appeal.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal denied leave to admit the new evidence and dismissed the appeal.

Practice - Topic 9031

Appeals - Evidence on appeal - Admission of new evidence - The British Columbia Court of Appeal discussed the principles respecting admission of "new" evidence on appeal: (1) the evidence should generally not be admitted if it could have been adduced at trial with due diligence (not applied as strictly in criminal cases as civil cases); (2) the evidence must bear upon a decisive or potentially decisive issue in the trial (relevance); (3) the evidence must be credible; and (4) the evidence, if believed, must reasonably be expected to affect the trial result - The court applied these principles in denying an accused convicted of two counts of possession of stolen goods leave to admit new evidence.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Palmer (1980), 30 N.R. 181; 14 C.R.(3d) 22 (S.C.C.), appld. [para. 10].

R. v. Nielsen and Stolar, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 480; 82 N.R. 280; 52 Man.R.(2d) 46; 62 C.R.(3d) 313, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. R.C. (1989), 31 O.A.C. 375; 47 C.C.C.(3d) 84 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Osiowy (1989), 80 Sask.R. 14; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 500 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].


Robert A. Mulligan, for the respondent;

   Bruce A. Goddard, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard before Lambert, Macfarlane and Proudfoot, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

On June 3, 1991, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered orally and the following opinions were filed:

Lambert, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 16, 19;

Macfarlane, J.A. - see paragraph 17;

Proudfoot, J.A. - see paragraph 18.

To continue reading