R. v. Fanjoy

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, Chouinard, Lamer, Le Dain and McIntyre, JJ.
• Citation: (1985), 62 N.R. 253 (SCC),1985 CanLII 5 (SCC),62 NR 253,[1985] 2 SCR 233,[1985] 2 SCR 285,21 CCC (3d) 312,48 CR (3d) 113,21 DLR (4th) 321,1985 CanLII 53 (SCC),11 OAC 381
• Date: 10 October 1985
• Subject Matter: CRIMINAL LAW

R. v. Fanjoy (1985), 62 N.R. 253 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

R. v. Fanjoy

Indexed As: R. v. Fanjoy

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, Chouinard, Lamer, Le Dain and McIntyre, JJ.

October 10, 1985.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of gross indecency contrary to s. 157 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The accused appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision not reported in this series of reports, dismissed the appeal by the application of s. 613(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the accused's appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 4351

Jury charge - Directions regarding burden of proof and reasonable doubt - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that it was an error of law for a trial judge to say to a jury "it is your duty to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused, but having done so, to convict if you believe guilt is established" - See paragraph 8.

Criminal Law - Topic 4372

Jury charge - Directions respecting alibi evidence or explanation by accused - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that it was an error of law for a judge to charge a jury that mere disbelief of the alibi evidence could be used as evidence of guilt itself - See paragraph 8.

Criminal Law - Topic 4860

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Question of law or question of law alone - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the decision by a judge "to exercise the discretion to intervene in cross-examination, or to refrain from intervention, is one involving considerations of both law and fact" and is not a question of law alone - See paragraph 8.

Criminal Law - Topic 5035

Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if error resulted in no miscarriage of justice - General - The Criminal Code, s. 613(1)(b)(iii), provided that where a court of appeal considered that there was a wrong decision on a question of law by a court below, the court of appeal could dismiss the appeal if there was no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice - The Supreme Court of Canada stated when the provisio could be applied - See paragraph 27.

Criminal Law - Topic 5045

Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if error resulted in no miscarriage of justice - Miscarriage of justice - What constitutes - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that any error which occurs at trial that deprives an accused of a fair trial according to law is a miscarriage of justice - See paragraph 11.

Criminal Law - Topic 5045

Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal - Criminal Code, s. 613(1)(b)(iii) - Miscarriage of justice - What constitutes - A court of appeal dismissed an accused's appeal against conviction by applying s. 613(1)(b)(iii), notwithstanding that the appeal court found that an error by the trial judge in not limiting cross- examination of a witness was prejudicial to the accused - In allowing the accused's appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the failure to limit cross-examination was not an error of law alone; therefore s. 613(1)(b)(iii) was inapplicable - The court also stated that because prejudicial error was found, the appeal should have been allowed under s. 613(1)(a)(iii) on the ground that a miscarriage of justice had occurred.

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 157 [para. 1]; sect. 613(1)(a)(iii), sect. 613(1)(b)(iii).

Counsel:

Clayton C. Ruby, for the accused;

Susan Ficek, for the Crown.

This appeal was heard on January 25, 1985, before Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, Chouinard, Lamer, Le Dain and McIntyre, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The following decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered by McIntyre, J., on October 10, 1985: