R. v. Skolnick, (1982) 42 N.R. 460 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer and Wilson, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: July 22, 1982
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1982), 42 N.R. 460 (SCC);[1982] 2 SCR 47;68 CCC (2d) 385;138 DLR (3d) 193;16 MVR 35;1982 CanLII 54 (SCC);[1982] SCJ No 60 (QL);42 NR 460;29 CR (3d) 143

R. v. Skolnick (1982), 42 N.R. 460 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Skolnick

Indexed As: R. v. Skolnick

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer and Wilson, JJ.

July 22, 1982

Summary:

The accused was convicted and sentenced at the same time for two offences arising out of the same drinking and driving incident. Subsequently the accused was convicted of impaired driving and the Crown requested the mandatory minimum penalty for a third offence under s. 236(1)(c) of the Criminal Code. The trial judge imposed the mandatory minimum of imprisonment for three months for a third offence. The accused appealed to the Ontario District Court.

The District Court dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The Ontario Court of Appeal set aside the judgments of the lower courts and imposed the minimum 14 day sentence as for a second offence. The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 5606

Sentence - Increased punishment for prior convictions - Criminal Code, s. 236(1) - The accused was convicted and sentenced at the same time for two offences arising out of the same drinking and driving incident - Subsequently the accused was convicted of impaired driving and the Crown requested the mandatory minimum penalty for a third offence under s. 236(1)(c) of the Criminal Code - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the first two convictions should be treated as one conviction for purposes of s. 236(1)(c).

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Negridge (1980), 54 C.C.C.(2d) 304, refd to. [para. 4].

Jack v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, [1972] 4 W.W.R. 602, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Cheetham (1980), 53 C.C.C.(2d) 109, refd to. [para. 5].

Christie v. Britnell (1895), 21 V.L.R. 71, refd to. [para. 5].

Farrington v. Thomson and Bridgland, [1959] V.R. 286, refd to. [para. 9].

O'Hara v. Harrington, [1962] Tas. S.R. 165, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Bohnet, [1976] 6 W.W.R. 176; 1 A.R. 590, refd to. [para. 17].

Miller, Ex parte (1875), 15 N.B.R. 485, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. O'Brien, ex parte Chamberlain (1908), 38 N.B.R. 381, refd to. [para. 19].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 236(1), sect. 236.1 [para. 2].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Coke's Institutes, vol. 2, page 468 [para. 5].

Counsel:

Hugh J. Campbell, for the appellant;

L.T. Feldman, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by LASKIN, C.J.C., RITCHIE, DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY, McINTYRE, CHOUINARD, LAMER and WILSON, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada on April 1, 1982.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered by LASKIN, C.J.C., on July 22, 1982.