R. v. Vokurka (E.), (2014) 348 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 362 (SCC)
| Judge | LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Moldaver and Karakatsanis, JJ. |
| Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
| Case Date | March 21, 2014 |
| Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
| Citations | (2014), 348 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 362 (SCC);2014 SCC 22;[2014] 1 SCR 498 |
R. v. Vokurka (E.) (2014), 348 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 362 (SCC);
1082 A.P.R. 362
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: [2014] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. AP.020
Eric Vokurka (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)
(35510; 2014 SCC 22; 2014 CSC 22)
Indexed As: R. v. Vokurka (E.)
Supreme Court of Canada
LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Moldaver and Karakatsanis, JJ.
March 21, 2014.
Summary:
The accused was convicted of aggravated assault for cutting the victim's arm. He appealed the conviction, alleging that the trial judge misapprehended evidence, drew an unreasonable inference from the evidence, and made an unreasonable decision.
The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal, Welsh, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported (2013), 339 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 248; 1054 A.P.R. 248, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed again.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. The court stated that it agreed with the majority of the Court of Appeal that the trial judge adequately explained why he rejected the possibility of accident and found that the charge was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Editor's Note: This headnote contains no topics.
Counsel:
Keir O'Flaherty and Bob Buckingham, for the accused;
Iain R.W. Hollett, for Her Majesty the Queen.
Solicitors of Record:
Bob Buckingham Law Offices, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, for the accused;
Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, for Her Majesty the Queen.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R. v. Parrott, 2019 NLSC 136
...4 W.W.R. (N.S.) 171 (B.C.C.A.); Stassis v. Amicus Bank, 2014 NLCA 38; R. v. S.O., 2019 NLCA 42; R. v. Vokurka, 2013 NLCA 51, aff’d 2014 SCC 22; R. v. Clark, 2005 SCC 2; R. v. Sinclair, 2011 SCC 40; R. v. Lohrer, 2004 SCC 80; R. v. C. (R.) (1992), 49 Q.A.C. 37, 81 C.C.C. (3d) 417; R. ......
-
R. v. Clarke,
...relevant facts, decide on their weight, and draw a factual conclusion.” See also R. v. Vokurka, 2013 NLCA 51, aff’d 2014 SCC 22, at para. 24, citing R. v. Clark, 2005 SCC 2, at para. Corporal Lane’s Opinion Evidence Regarding Drug Trafficking of Cocaine Generally ......
-
R. v. Robinson, 2017 BCCA 6
...the actus reus was confirmed in R. v. Cooper [1978] 1 S.C.R. 860 at 874-8; and more recently in R. v. Vokurka 2013 NLCA 51, aff’d 2014 SCC 22. [25] Mr. Peck submitted that since the contentious elements of the case at bar relate to the ......
-
R. v. Robinson,
...of the actus reus was confirmed in R. v. Cooper [1978] 1 S.C.R. 860 at 874-8; and more recently in R. v. Vokurka 2013 NLCA 51, aff’d 2014 SCC 22. Mr. Peck submitted that since the contentious elements of the case at bar relate to the mental element of perjury rather than to the actus reus, ......
-
R. v. Parrott, 2019 NLSC 136
...4 W.W.R. (N.S.) 171 (B.C.C.A.); Stassis v. Amicus Bank, 2014 NLCA 38; R. v. S.O., 2019 NLCA 42; R. v. Vokurka, 2013 NLCA 51, aff’d 2014 SCC 22; R. v. Clark, 2005 SCC 2; R. v. Sinclair, 2011 SCC 40; R. v. Lohrer, 2004 SCC 80; R. v. C. (R.) (1992), 49 Q.A.C. 37, 81 C.C.C. (3d) 417; R. ......
-
R. v. Clarke,
...relevant facts, decide on their weight, and draw a factual conclusion.” See also R. v. Vokurka, 2013 NLCA 51, aff’d 2014 SCC 22, at para. 24, citing R. v. Clark, 2005 SCC 2, at para. Corporal Lane’s Opinion Evidence Regarding Drug Trafficking of Cocaine Generally ......
-
R. v. Robinson, 2017 BCCA 6
...the actus reus was confirmed in R. v. Cooper [1978] 1 S.C.R. 860 at 874-8; and more recently in R. v. Vokurka 2013 NLCA 51, aff’d 2014 SCC 22. [25] Mr. Peck submitted that since the contentious elements of the case at bar relate to the ......
-
R. v. Robinson,
...of the actus reus was confirmed in R. v. Cooper [1978] 1 S.C.R. 860 at 874-8; and more recently in R. v. Vokurka 2013 NLCA 51, aff’d 2014 SCC 22. Mr. Peck submitted that since the contentious elements of the case at bar relate to the mental element of perjury rather than to the actus reus, ......