R. v. Losing (J.B.), 2008 ABCA 140

• Judge: Côté, McFadyen and Watson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: April 03, 2008
• Citations: 2008 ABCA 140;(2008), 429 A.R. 55 (CA)

R. v. Losing (J.B.) (2008), 429 A.R. 55 (CA);

      421 W.A.C. 55

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] A.R. TBEd. AP.080

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Jason Brendan Losing (appellant)

(0703-0158-A; 2008 ABCA 140)

Indexed As: R. v. Losing (J.B.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Côté, McFadyen and Watson, JJ.A.

April 3, 2008.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of assault causing bodily harm. The accused appealed. The Crown conceded that the trial judge erred in law in his reasons for convicting the accused. At issue was whether the proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Code applied to that error such that the appeal could be dismissed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the proviso was not applicable, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

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 was convicted of assault causing bodily harm - The accused appealed - The Crown conceded that the trial judge erred in law in his reasons for convicting the accused, by using the evidence of an accomplice and co-defendant (B) as evidence against the accused - At issue was whether the proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Code applied to that error such that the appeal could be dismissed - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the proviso was not applicable because it could not be said that there was no reasonable prospect of a "different conclusion" and there was some question as to whether the trial judge accepted the other evidence presented by the Crown similar to B's statement beyond a reasonable doubt without reference to B's statement - In the result the court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. McFall, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 321; 27 N.R. 420; 48 C.C.C.(2d) 225, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Perciballi (P.) et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 761; 289 N.R. 376; 161 O.A.C. 201; 2002 SCC 51, affing. (2001), 146 O.A.C. 1; 154 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Suzack (C.V.) et al. (2000), 128 O.A.C. 140; 141 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Parberry (L.) (2005), 203 O.A.C. 334; 202 C.C.C.(3d) 337 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. McKinnon (N.L.) et al. (2007), 422 A.R. 265; 415 W.A.C. 265; 2007 ABCA 382 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Khelawon (R.), [2006] 2 S.C.R. 787; 355 N.R. 267; 220 O.A.C. 338, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Naicker (R.N.) (2007), 249 B.C.A.C. 145; 414 W.A.C. 145 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. P.L.S., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 909; 122 N.R. 321; 90 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 234; 280 A.P.R. 234, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. John, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 476; 63 N.R. 141; 11 O.A.C. 391, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Colpitts, [1965] S.C.R. 739, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Khan (M.A.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 823; 279 N.R. 79; 160 Man.R.(2d) 161; 262 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 86, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Haughton (D.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 516; 179 N.R. 1; 79 O.A.C. 319, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 9].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 686(1)(b)(iii) [para. 4].

Counsel:

J.A. Bowron, for the respondent;

K.J. Teskey, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on April 3, 2008, before Côté, McFadyen and Watson, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The following memorandum of judgment was delivered orally for the court, from the bench, by Watson, J.A., on April 3, 2008, and filed in Edmonton, Alberta, on April 11, 2008.