R. v. Royz (E.), (2009) 251 O.A.C. 397 (SCC)

• Judge: Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 25, 2009
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2009), 251 O.A.C. 397 (SCC);2009 SCC 13;EYB 2009-156869;[2009] SCJ No 13 (QL);304 DLR (4th) 328;388 NR 1;251 OAC 397;241 CCC (3d) 385;JE 2009-687;[2009] 1 SCR 423

R. v. Royz (E.) (2009), 251 O.A.C. 397 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2009] O.A.C. TBEd. AP.093

Emmanuil Royz (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(32806; 2009 SCC 13; 2009 CSC 13)

Indexed As: R. v. Royz (E.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ.

March 25, 2009.

Summary:

Following a trial by judge and jury, the accused was convicted of extortion. He appealed arguing that: (1) the trial judge erred in his charge on extortion; (2) the tapes of the accused's telephone conversations with the complainant should not have been admitted: (3) the verdict was unreasonable because the accused did not threaten the complainant; and (4) the trial judge's charge failed to adequately review the evidence and, in particular, a portion of the complainant's cross-examination.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 248 O.A.C. 361, dismissed the appeal. However, Borins, J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal on the basis of the fourth ground of appeal. The accused appealed as of right based on the dissent in the Court of Appeal related to the adequacy of the trial judge's review of the evidence in his charge to the jury.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 1753

Offences against property - Extortion - Jury charge - The accused appealed his extortion conviction, arguing that the trial judge's charge failed to adequately review the evidence and, in particular, a portion of the complainant's cross-examination - Rather than conduct an extensive review of the evidence, the trial judge, in the context of reviewing the positions of the Crown and the defence, described some of the evidence in support of their respective positions - The Ontario Court of Appeal, Borins, J.A., dissenting on this ground, dismissed the appeal - The court, noting that this was a short and simple trial, held that the trial judge was not required to review the evidence in greater detail in this case - The court also noted that defence counsel did not object to the manner in which the trial judge addressed the evidence or summarized the defence position - The accused appealed as of right based on the dissent in the Court of Appeal - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal - See paragraphs 19 to 33.

Criminal Law - Topic 4352

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Direction on evidence generally - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1753 ].

Cases Noticed:

Azoulay  v.  R.,  [1952] 2 S.C.R. 495,  refd to.

[para. 2].

R. v. Jacquard (C.O.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 314; 207 N.R. 246; 157 N.S.R.(2d) 161; 462 A.P.R. 161, refd to. [para. 2].

Counsel:

Ian M. Carter, for the appellant;

Gillian Roberts, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Not disclosed.

This appeal was heard on March 25, 2009, before Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. Binnie, J., orally delivered the following judgment for the court in both official languages on March 25, 2009.