R. v. Zazulak (D.A.), (1994) 166 N.R. 243 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 05, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1994), 166 N.R. 243 (SCC);149 AR 377;18 Alta LR (3d) 1;88 CCC (3d) 415;166 NR 243;1994 CanLII 78 (SCC);[1994] 2 SCR 5;[1994] 5 WWR 457

R. v. Zazulak (D.A.) (1994), 166 N.R. 243 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Donald Anton Zazulak (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(23713)

Indexed As: R. v. Zazulak (D.A.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, Sopinka, Cory,

McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

May 4, 1994.

Summary:

The accused RCMP officer was acquitted of a charge of perjury. The Crown appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 145 A.R. 31; 55 W.A.C. 31, allowed the appeal and entered a conviction. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 502

Offences against the administration of law and justice - Perjury - What constitutes "intent to mislead" - An RCMP officer lied while testifying under oath before a Special Commissioner - The officer subsequently testified in the same pro­ceedings that he had lied in his earlier testimony - The officer was acquitted of perjury - The trial judge found that the officer's initial intent to mislead was elim­inated by his subsequent recanta­tion and explanation - The Alberta Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal and con­victed the accused, holding that the trial judge erred in requiring a continuing intent to mislead and in suggesting that the re­cantation negatived the intent to mislead - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the decision.

Criminal Law - Topic 4860

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Question of law or question of law alone - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the issue of whether a recantation of perjury within the same hearing would nullify the prior finding of the completed offence of perjury, was a question of law - See paragraph 1.

Counsel:

C.D. Evans, Q.C., and P.C. Fagan, for the appellant;

William G. Pinckney, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following decision of the court was delivered orally in both offi­cial lan­guages by Major, J., on May 5, 1994.