R. v. Boutilier
The appeal was dismissed because the Crown, under the standard of appellate review set out in R. v. Oickle, did not identify any error of law in the unusual factual circumstances of the case.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2001 NSCA 170
- Parties
- Appellant: Her Majesty the Queen; Respondent: Ronald Richard Boutilier
- Court
- Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 27 November 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Heard and Dismissed)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Standard of Appellate Review, Question of Law, Crown Appeal
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Appellant
Ronald Richard Boutilier
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Heard and Dismissed)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Crown identified an error of law sufficient to overturn the decision below
- 2 Application of the standard of appellate review articulated in R. v. Oickle to the unusual factual circumstances of the case
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the Crown, under the standard of appellate review set out in R. v. Oickle, did not identify any error of law in the unusual factual circumstances of the case.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Boutilier Court Court of Appeal Date 2001-11-27 Citation 2001 NSCA 170 Docket CAC 170661 Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Cromwell, Thomas A. (Honourable Justice); Freeman, Gerald B. (Honourable Justice) (CA); Oland, Linda L. (Honourable Justice) Document Type Decision Relations Library Sheet - R. v. Boutilier - 2001 NSCA 170 - 2001-11-27 - Library Sheet Decision Content Date: 20011127 Docket No.: CAC 170661 NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL [Cite as: R. v. Boutilier, 2001 NSCA 170] Cromwell, Freeman and Oland; JJ.A. BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Appellant - and - RONALD RICHARD BOUTILIER Respondent __________________________________________________________________ REASONS FOR JUDGMENT __________________________________________________________________ Counsel: Kenneth W. F. Fiske, Q.C. for the appellant D. Timothy Gabriel and Jessica Lyle for the respondent Appeal Heard: November 27, 2001 Judgment Delivered: November 27, 2001 THE COURT: Appeal dismissed per oral reasons for judgment of Freeman, J.A.; Cromwell and Oland, JJ.A. concurring. FREEMAN, J.A. (Orally): [1] This Crown appeal is restricted to grounds which involve a question of law alone. Having regard to the standard of appellate review as set out in R. v. Oickle, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 3 we are not persuaded that the Crown has identified, in the unusual factual circumstances of this case, any error of law alone. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Freeman, J.A. Concurred in: Cromwell, J.A. Oland, J.A.