R. v. Deane (K.), (2001) 140 O.A.C. 269 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 26, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2001), 140 O.A.C. 269 (SCC)

R. v. Deane (K.) (2001), 140 O.A.C. 269 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2001] O.A.C. TBEd. FE.101

Kenneth Deane (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(27776)

Indexed As: R. v. Deane (K.)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.

January 26, 2001.

Summary:

The accused police officer was convicted of criminal negligence causing death and received a conditional sentence of two years less a day. He appealed his conviction. The Crown cross-appealed the sentence.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Weiler, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported 129 O.A.C. 335, dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 5045

Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage results - What constitutes a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice - The accused police officer was convicted of criminal negligence causing death - He appealed his conviction arguing, inter alia, that the trial judge erred in failing to hold a voir dire respecting statements he made to his commander - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The court assumed that the voir dire was necessary and the evidence respecting the accused's statements to his commander should not have been admitted because they were made to a person in authority - The court concluded that the trial was fair, or fairer to the accused, than a new trial would be -There was no reasonable possibility that the verdict would have been different had the error not been made - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the accused's appeal.

Counsel:

Alan D. Gold and Maureen J. McGuire, for the appellant;

Milan Rupic, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. McLachlin, C.J.C., delivered the following oral decision for the court in both official languages on January 26, 2001.