R. v. Drouin

R. v. Drouin

The trial judge properly admitted the Fire Commissioner statements; his subsequent remarks concerned their probative weight rather than admissibility, a factual matter outside this Court's jurisdiction, and s.376 did not apply because the respondents' policy covered personal property, not the building alleged to have been wilfully set on fire.

Citation
[1973] SCR 747
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Her Majesty The Queen; Defendant/respondent: Alfredo Drouin; Defendant/respondent: Nelson Drouin
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 December 1972
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench (appeal Side); Acquittal at Trial (court of the Sessions of the Peace)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Arson, Admissibility of Evidence, Confessions, Statutory Presumption, Fire Insurance, Probative Force, Voir Dire
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Arson Admissibility of Evidence Confessions Statutory Presumption Fire Insurance Probative Force Voir Dire

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen

Plaintiff/appellant

Alfredo Drouin

Defendant/respondent

Nelson Drouin

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench (appeal Side); Acquittal at Trial (court of the Sessions of the Peace)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge repudiated his prior ruling admitting statements made under oath before the Fire Commissioner
  2. 2 Whether statements made under compulsion before the Fire Commissioner were inadmissible
  3. 3 Whether the presumption in Criminal Code s.376 applied

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge properly admitted the Fire Commissioner statements; his subsequent remarks concerned their probative weight rather than admissibility, a factual matter outside this Court's jurisdiction, and s.376 did not apply because the respondents' policy covered personal property, not the building alleged to have been wilfully set on fire.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.