R. v. Hinse (R.), (1995) 189 N.R. 321 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 30, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1995), 189 N.R. 321 (SCC);[1995] SCJ No 97 (QL);[1995] 4 SCR 597;102 CCC (3d) 289;1995 CanLII 54 (SCC);[1995] ACS no 97;189 NR 321;44 CR (4th) 209;130 DLR (4th) 54

R. v. Hinse (R.) (1995), 189 N.R. 321 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Réjean Hinse (applicant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(24320)

Indexed As: R. v. Hinse (R.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

November 30, 1995.

Summary:

In 1964, the Court of Sessions of the Peace convicted Hinse of armed robbery and sentenced him to 15 years in jail. In 1991, upon discovery of new evidence and correction of old, Hinse appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 64 Q.A.C. 53, allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and ordered a stay of proceedings. Hinse applied for leave to appeal the stay.

The Supreme Court of Canada refused leave to appeal. Hinse applied for reconsideration.

The Supreme Court of Canada, L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting, allowed the application and granted leave to appeal.

Courts - Topic 3033

Supreme Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - General - What constitutes "final judgment ... of the highest court of final resort" - [See Courts - Topic 3107 ].

Courts - Topic 3107

Supreme Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Appeals from provincial courts - Criminal cases - Stay of proceedings - In 1964, Hinse was convicted of armed robbery - In 1991, upon discovery of new evidence and correction of old, Hinse appealed - The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and, under s. 686(8) of the Criminal Code, ordered a stay of proceedings - Hinse appealed the stay - The Supreme Court of Canada held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the legality of the order rendered under s. 686(8) as a "final or other judgment ... of the highest court of final resort in a province" under the court's general jurisdiction under s. 40(1) of the Supreme Court Act - See paragraphs 11 to 36.

Practice - Topic 9097

Appeals - Supreme Court of Canada - Reconsideration of order refusing leave to appeal - [See Courts - Topic 3107 ].

Practice - Topic 9097

Appeals - Supreme Court of Canada - Reconsideration of order refusing leave to appeal - In 1964, Hinse was convicted of armed robbery - In 1991, upon discovery of new evidence and correction of old, Hinse appealed - The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and ordered a stay of proceedings - Hinse appealed the stay - The Supreme Court of Canada refused leave to appeal - Hinse applied for reconsideration - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the court does not normally reconsider its decisions regarding leave to appeal; a judicial policy enshrined in rule 51(12) - However, given the unique question of jurisdiction raised in the present case, the court exercised its discretion under rule 7 to hear the motion for reconsideration of its initial order denying leave - See paragraphs 8 to 10.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Nielsen and Stolar, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 480; 82 N.R. 280; 52 Man.R.(2d) 46; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 62 C.R.(3d) 313; [1988] 3 W.W.R. 193, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Hinse, [1995] 1 S.C.R. viii, refd to. [para. 6].

Reekie v. Messervey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 219; 104 N.R. 387, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Johnson (S.G.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. viii; 164 N.R. 79; 133 N.S.R.(2d) 80; 380 A.P.R. 80, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Barnes, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 449; 121 N.R. 267, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. MacKenzie, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 212; 146 N.R. 321; 118 N.S.R.(2d) 290; 327 A.P.R. 290; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Johnson et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 965; 174 N.R. 321; 76 O.A.C. 241; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Laba - see R. v. Johnson et al.

R. v. Meddoui, [1991] 3 S.C.R. ix; 137 N.R. 389; 114 A.R. 80, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Keegstra (J.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 381; 180 N.R. 120; 169 A.R. 50; 97 W.A.C. 50, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Finta, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 701; 165 N.R. 1; 70 O.A.C. 241; 112 D.L.R.(4th) 513, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.) (1994), 42 B.C.A.C. 105; 67 W.A.C. 105; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 109 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Jewitt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 128; 61 N.R. 159; [1985] 6 W.W.R. 127; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 7; 20 D.L.R.(4th) 651; 47 C.R.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Young (1984), 3 O.A.C. 254; 40 C.R.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Keyowski, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 657; 83 N.R. 296; 65 Sask.R. 122, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Mack, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 903; 90 N.R. 173, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Conway, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1659; 96 N.R. 241; 34 O.A.C. 165; 49 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 70 C.R.(3d) 209, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Scott, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 979; 116 N.R. 361; 43 O.A.C. 277, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Power (E.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601; 165 N.R. 241; 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 365 A.P.R. 269; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 29 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. L.E. et al. (1994), 75 O.A.C. 244; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 228 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. A.J.B. (1994), 120 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 147; 373 A.P.R. 147; 90 C.C.C.(3d) 210 (Nfld. C.A.), revd. [1995] 2 S.C.R. 413; 182 N.R. 384; 133 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 231; 413 A.P.R. 231, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Zurlo (A.) (1990), 34 Q.A.C. 133; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 407 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Hill (No. 2), [1977] 1 S.C.R. 827; 7 N.R. 373; 17 O.A.C. 33; 62 D.L.R.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Gardiner, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 368; 43 N.R. 361; 68 C.C.C.(2d) 477, refd to. [para. 26].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Provo, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 3; 97 N.R. 209; 59 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Elliott, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 393; 18 N.R. 485; 38 C.C.C.(2d) 177, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322; 26 C.R.N.S. 1; 15 C.C.C.(2d) 524; 44 D.L.R.(3d) 351, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Terlecki, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 483; 64 N.R. 233; 65 A.R. 401, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Sullivan and Lemay, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 489; 122 N.R. 166, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Wade (W.) (1994), 69 O.A.C. 321; 29 C.R.(4th) 327 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Wade (W.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 737; 182 N.R. 387; 82 O.A.C. 182, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Terlicki (1983), 42 A.R. 87; 4 C.C.C.(3d) 522 (C.A.), affd. [1985] 2 S.C.R. 483; 64 N.R. 233; 65 A.R. 401, refd to. [para. 38].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 674, sect. 686(2), sect. 686(4), sect. 686(8), sect. 691, sect. 693 [para. 6].

Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, SOR/83-74, rule 7, rule 29(1), rule 51(12) [para. 6].

Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, sect. 2, sect. 40(1), sect. 40(3) [para. 6].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Jacob, I.H., The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court (1970), 23 Current Legal Problems 23, p. 27 [para. 21].

Counsel:

Jean-François Longtin and Josée Ferrari, for the applicant;

Pierre Sauvé, for the Crown.

Solicitors of Record:

Langlois Robert, Montreal, Quebec, for the applicant;

Attorney General of Quebec, Montreal, Quebec, for the Crown.

This appeal was heard on October 2, 1995, by Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The decision of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on November 30, 1995, and the following opinions were filed:

Lamer, C.J.C. (La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 36;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 37 to 44.