R. v. Raghunauth (G.), (2005) 203 O.A.C. 54 (CA)
| Judge | Labrosse, Sharpe and Gillese, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ontario) |
| Case Date | October 13, 2005 |
| Jurisdiction | Ontario |
| Citations | (2005), 203 O.A.C. 54 (CA) |
R. v. Raghunauth (G.) (2005), 203 O.A.C. 54 (CA)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2005] O.A.C. TBEd. OC.067
Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Ganeshram Raghunauth (appellant)
(C40860)
Indexed As: R. v. Raghunauth (G.)
Ontario Court of Appeal
Labrosse, Sharpe and Gillese, JJ.A.
October 18, 2005.
Summary:
The accused appealed his conviction for the first degree murder of his wife.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Criminal Law - Topic 5037
Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage results - Evidentiary error - The accused appealed his conviction for the first degree murder of his wife - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - Although the admissibility of certain evidence of bad character was borderline at best, this was an appropriate case to apply the proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code - The evidence against the accused was powerful and there was no realistic possibility that a new trial would produce a different verdict - The court stated that "caution should be exercised before applying the proviso in cases resting solely upon credibility. However, we do not agree that there is a rule excluding the proviso in cases turning upon credibility. Rather, in every case, the applicability of the proviso must depend upon careful consideration of the particular facts and circumstances." - See paragraph 9.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Dunn (1993), 82 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].
R. v. F.F.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 697; 148 N.R. 161; 120 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 332 A.P.R. 1; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 112, refd to. [para. 8].
R. v. Jolivet (D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 751; 254 N.R. 1; 144 C.C.C.(3d) 97, appld. [para. 14].
Counsel:
Russell Silverstein, for the appellant;
David Finley, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on October 13, 2005, by Labrosse, Sharpe and Gillese, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The court released the following endorsement on October 18, 2005.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R. v. Samaniego, 2022 SCC 9
...[1993] 4 S.C.R. 475; R. v. N.S., 2012 SCC 72, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 726; R. v. Perkins, 2016 ONCA 588, 352 O.A.C. 149; R. v. Raghunauth (2005), 203 O.A.C. 54; R. v. L.K.W. (1999), 126 O.A.C. 39. Statutes and Regulations Cited Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑5, s. 10(1) . Canadian Charter o......
-
R. v. Perkins (T.), 2016 ONCA 588
...as in the present case, the hurdle is a difficult one and caution should be exercised prior to its application: R. v. Raghunauth (2005), 203 O.A.C. 54 (C.A.), at para. 9; L.K.W. , at para. 97. Where credibility is the central issue at trial, the curative proviso has been applied where the C......
-
R. v. Perkins, 2016 ONCA 588
...as in the present case, the hurdle is a difficult one and caution should be exercised prior to its application: R. v. Raghunauth (2005), 203 O.A.C. 54 (C.A.), at para. 9; L.K.W., at para. 97. Where credibility is the central issue at trial, the curative proviso has been applied where the Cr......
-
R. v. George (D.), (2016) 349 O.A.C. 347 (CA)
...the proviso where a case turns on credibility, there is no rule excluding its application in such a case: see R. v. Raghunauth (2005), 203 O.A.C. 54 (C.A.). As LeBel J. observed with respect to both branches of the proviso in Van , at para. 36, "the underlying question is always whether the......
-
R. v. Samaniego, 2022 SCC 9
...[1993] 4 S.C.R. 475; R. v. N.S., 2012 SCC 72, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 726; R. v. Perkins, 2016 ONCA 588, 352 O.A.C. 149; R. v. Raghunauth (2005), 203 O.A.C. 54; R. v. L.K.W. (1999), 126 O.A.C. 39. Statutes and Regulations Cited Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑5, s. 10(1) . Canadian Charter o......
-
R. v. Perkins, 2016 ONCA 588
...as in the present case, the hurdle is a difficult one and caution should be exercised prior to its application: R. v. Raghunauth (2005), 203 O.A.C. 54 (C.A.), at para. 9; L.K.W., at para. 97. Where credibility is the central issue at trial, the curative proviso has been applied where the Cr......
-
R. v. Perkins (T.), 2016 ONCA 588
...as in the present case, the hurdle is a difficult one and caution should be exercised prior to its application: R. v. Raghunauth (2005), 203 O.A.C. 54 (C.A.), at para. 9; L.K.W. , at para. 97. Where credibility is the central issue at trial, the curative proviso has been applied where the C......
-
R. v. George (D.), (2016) 349 O.A.C. 347 (CA)
...the proviso where a case turns on credibility, there is no rule excluding its application in such a case: see R. v. Raghunauth (2005), 203 O.A.C. 54 (C.A.). As LeBel J. observed with respect to both branches of the proviso in Van , at para. 36, "the underlying question is always whether the......