Canada Judgment

Supreme Court of Canada

Lavallée v. The Queen

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The appeal was quashed because the contested photographic identification raised only a sufficiency/weight issue rather than an error of law, and the voir dire complaint was not preserved before the Court of Appeal so the Supreme Court refused to consider it.

Court disposition

Appeal quashed

Orders

  • Appeal quashed.
  • Leave to appeal refused on the voir dire issue.

02

Material facts

Parties

Allan Frederick Lavallée

Appellant Counsel: J.L. Sinclair

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent Counsel: J.G. Dangerfeld

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Manitoba to the Supreme Court of Canada

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Appellant argued that photographic identification was unreliable and that the trial judge erred in refusing a voir dire, rendering the conviction unsafe.
Respondent
Crown argued that the photographic identification and the statement to police supported the conviction and that the voir dire point was not raised before the Court of Appeal and therefore not properly before this Court.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Lavallée v. The Queen, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 626

    Appellate review distinguishes questions of law from questions of fact or weight; matters of sufficiency are for appellate correction only in limited circumstances.

  2. 02

    Lavallée v. The Queen, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 626

    Issues not raised in the intermediate appellate court will ordinarily not be entertained by the Supreme Court without leave.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The appeal was quashed because the contested photographic identification raised only a sufficiency/weight issue rather than an error of law, and the voir dire complaint was not preserved before the Court of Appeal so the Supreme Court refused to consider it.

Obiter and limits

  • The statement to police was allowed into evidence at trial; the Court did not grant leave to re-examine the voir dire point.
  • Justice O'Sullivan's dissent on the identification evidence was treated as raising a sufficiency/weight issue rather than a purely legal question.

Court disposition

Appeal quashed

  • Appeal quashed.
  • Leave to appeal refused on the voir dire issue.

Source and reliance status

Supreme Court of Canada · 17 May 1977

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Supreme Court of Canada

Judgment· 17 May 1977

[1977] 2 SCR 626

Lavallée v. The Queen Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1977-05-17 Report [1977] 2 SCR 626 Judges Laskin, Bora; Martland, Ronald; Judson, Wilfred; Ritchie, Roland Almon; Spence, Wishart Flett; Pigeon, Louis-Philippe; Dickson, Robert George Brian; Beetz, Jean; de Grandpré, Louis-Philippe On appeal from Manitoba Subjects Appeal Evidence Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Lavallée v. The Queen, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 626 Date: 1977-05-17 Allan Frederick Lavallée Appellant; and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent. 1977: May 17. Present: Laskin C.J. and Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré JJ.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR MANITOBA Evidence—Identification evidence—Use of photographs—Sufficient to support conviction. Appeal—Statement to police allowed into evidence—Leave to appeal refused on question whether trial judge erred in law in connection with request for voir dire. APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Manitoba dismissing an appeal by the appellant from his conviction on one charge of break, enter and theft and another of simple theft. Appeal quashed. J.L. Sinclair, for the appellant. J.G. Dangerfeld, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by THE CHIEF JUSTICE—We are all of the opinion that this appeal should be quashed. We do not think that any question of law arises under Justice O’Sullivan’s dissent on the question of the identification evidence through the use of photographs. At the most, the issue raised in the dissent involves a question of the sufficiency or weight of the evidence. We refuse leave to appeal on the question whether the trial judge had erred in law in connection with the request for a voir dire. This point was not raised before the Manitoba Court of Appeal, and we do not think that, in the circumstances revealed by the record, the point arises in a form that would warrant its consideration here. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant: Sinclair, McCulloch, Kress & Jachetta, Winnipeg. Solicitor for the respondent: The Attorney General for Manitoba.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.