R. v. Morin

R. v. Morin

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the acquittal because the Court of Appeal impermissibly substituted its preferred view of contested facts for the trial judge's findings; none of the recognized legal bases for treating the factual assessment as an error of law (legal effect of undisputed facts, misdirection, failure to consider totality) were established, so interference with the acquittal was unwarranted.

Citation
[1992] 3 SCR 286
Parties
Appellant/accused: Kevin Martie Morin; Respondent/crown: Her Majesty The Queen
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 January 1992
Procedural Posture
Criminal — Crown Appeal From Acquittal; Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada — Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal Order Setting Aside Acquittal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; acquittal restored.
Legal Topics
Appeal From Acquittal, Question of Law, Judicial Review of Factual Findings, Dangerous Driving, Misdirection, Totality of Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Appeal Appeal From Acquittal Question of Law Judicial Review of Factual Findings Dangerous Driving Misdirection +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Martie Morin

Appellant/accused

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent/crown

Procedural Posture

Criminal — Crown Appeal From Acquittal; Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada — Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal Order Setting Aside Acquittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal exceeded its jurisdiction under s.676(1)(a) by treating contested factual inferences as questions of law
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in law by failing to consider relevant evidence or misdirecting herself on evidence such that acquittal was unsustainable
  3. 3 Proper application of principles from R. v. B. (G.) regarding when factual assessment amounts to an error of law

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the acquittal because the Court of Appeal impermissibly substituted its preferred view of contested facts for the trial judge's findings; none of the recognized legal bases for treating the factual assessment as an error of law (legal effect of undisputed facts, misdirection, failure to consider totality) were established, so interference with the acquittal was unwarranted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; acquittal restored.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and acquittal restored.