R. v. Lake, (2005) 240 N.S.R.(2d) 40 (CA)

• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Judge: MacDonald, C.J.N.S., Freeman and Fichaud, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2005 NSCA 162
• Citation: (2005), 240 N.S.R.(2d) 40 (CA),2005 NSCA 162,203 CCC (3d) 316,[2005] CarswellNS 538,[2005] NSJ No 506 (QL),240 NSR (2d) 40,240 NSR(2d) 40,240 N.S.R.(2d) 40,[2005] NS.J. No 506 (QL),(2005), 240 NSR(2d) 40 (CA)
• Date: 14 November 2005
• Court: Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)

R. v. Lake (P.E.) (2005), 240 N.S.R.(2d) 40 (CA);

    763 A.P.R. 40

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.016

Paul Eldon Lake (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(CAC 250052; 2005 NSCA 162)

Indexed As: R. v. Lake (P.E.)

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

MacDonald, C.J.N.S., Freeman and Fichaud, JJ.A.

December 15, 2005.

Summary:

The Nova Scotia Provincial Court (judge alone) found the accused guilty of assault. The accused appealed.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 4379

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions re evidence of character or credibility of accused - The trial judge found the accused guilty of assault - Her reasons for judgment gave every appearance that she decided: (1) to believe the Crown witnesses; (2) based on this belief, that the Crown had proven its case; and (3) as a result of the first two conclusions, to discount the accused's opposing testimony - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal overturned the verdict and ordered a new trial where the trial judge failed to assess the believability of the accused, contrary to the first branch of the R. v. D.W (S.C.C.) test, i.e., if a trier of fact believed the evidence of accused, then she had to acquit.

Criminal Law - Topic 4944

Appeals - Indictable offences -New trials - When available - General - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal overturned a guilty verdict rendered by a judge alone and ordered a new trial where the judge had failed to assess the accused's credibility and where the accused's credibility was a basic trial issue which should not be assessed for the first time in the Court of Appeal - See paragraph 29.

Criminal Law - Topic 4950

Appeals - Indictable offences - New trials - Grounds - Misdirection by trial judge - General - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4379].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352, consd. [para. 7].

R. v. Sheppard (C.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869; 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. W.D.S., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 521; 171 N.R. 360; 157 A.R. 321; 77 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Chittick (D.S.) (2004), 228 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 723 A.P.R. 81; 2004 NSCA 135, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Boucher (E.) (2005), 342 N.R. 42; 2005 SCC 72, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Minuskin (S.) (2003), 180 O.A.C. 255; 181 C.C.C.(3d) 542 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Brown (J.R.) (1994), 132 N.S.R.(2d) 224; 376 A.P.R. 224 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Maharaj (Y.) (2004), 187 O.A.C. 101; 186 C.C.C.(3d) 247 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2005), 334 N.R. 198 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Saulnier (L.M.) (2005), 231 N.S.R.(2d) 342; 733 A.P.R. 342; 2005 NSCA 54, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Morrissey (R.J.) (1995), 80 O.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Robicheau (M.D.) (2001), 193 N.S.R.(2d) 42; 602 A.P.R. 42 (C.A.), revd. [2002] 2 S.C.R. 643; 289 N.R. 217; 216 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 645 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. J.M. (2002), 207 N.S.R.(2d) 262; 649 A.P.R. 262; 2002 NSCA 99, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Binnington (C.S.) (2005), 237 N.S.R.(2d) 334; 754 A.P.R. 334; 2005 NSCA 133, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Smaaslet (G.) (2004), 204 B.C.A.C. 13; 333 W.A.C. 13; 2004 BCCA 432, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Nelson (W.), [2004] O.A.C. Uned. 390 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Lessard (M.A.) (2005), 215 B.C.A.C. 118; 355 W.A.C. 118; 2005 BCCA 395, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Morin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345; 88 N.R. 161; 30 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Strong (J.), [2001] O.A.C. Uned. 51 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Guan (E.F.) (2002), 174 B.C.A.C. 216; 286 W.A.C. 216; 2002 BCCA 542, consd. [para. 23].

R. v. Jeng (H.-T.), [2004] B.C.A.C. Uned. 162; 2004 BCCA 464, consd. [para. 23].

R. v. C.J.L. (2004), 190 Man.R.(2d) 177; 335 W.A.C. 177; 2004 MBCA 126, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Tzarfin (M.) (2005), 201 O.A.C. 183 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. R.L. (2002), 162 O.A.C. 275 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Braich (A.) et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 903; 285 N.R. 162; 164 B.C.A.C. 1; 268 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Burke (J.) (No. 3), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 474; 194 N.R. 247; 139 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 147; 433 A.P.R. 147, refd to. [para. 29].

Counsel:

James White, for the appellant;

Kenneth W.F. Fiske, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in Halifax, N.S., on November 14, 2005, by MacDonald, C.J.N.S., Freeman and Fichaud, JJ.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered on December 15, 2005, by Fichaud, J.A.