Lavallée v. The Queen
- Citation
- [1977] 2 SCR 626
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 17 May 1977
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Manitoba to the Supreme Court of Canada
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 17 May 1977
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Manitoba to the Supreme Court of Canada
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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. SinclairHer Majesty The Queen
Respondent Counsel: J.G. Dangerfeld03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Manitoba to the Supreme Court of Canada
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether identification evidence based on photographs raises a question of law or a question of sufficiency/weight of evidence
- 02
Whether the trial judge erred in law by denying a voir dire
- 03
Whether the defendant's statement to police was admissible
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
Legal principles
- 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.
- 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.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 17 May 1977
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.
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.