Canada Judgment

Supreme Court of Canada

R. v. Campbell

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The appeal was dismissed because the Supreme Court was in substantial agreement with the British Columbia Court of Appeal's reasons upholding the appellant's conviction for second degree murder.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Judgment accordingly

02

Material facts

Parties

Lee Edward Campbell

Appellant Counsel: Sheldon Goldberg

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent Counsel: John M. Gordon

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From the British Columbia Court of Appeal

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The appellant challenged his conviction for second degree murder and sought to have the conviction overturned by this Court.
Respondent
The Crown argued the conviction was sound and urged the Court to dismiss the appeal, relying on the reasons of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Supreme Court of Canada

    Standard of appellate review of criminal convictions: appellate courts defer to trial findings unless clearly unreasonable

  2. 02

    British Columbia Court of Appeal (Hall J.A.), adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada

    An appeal may be dismissed where the Court is in substantial agreement with the reasons of the lower appellate court

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the Supreme Court was in substantial agreement with the British Columbia Court of Appeal's reasons upholding the appellant's conviction for second degree murder.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Judgment accordingly

Source and reliance status

Supreme Court of Canada · 11 December 1998

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· 11 December 1998

[1998] 3 SCR 533

R. v. Campbell Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1998-12-11 Report [1998] 3 SCR 533 Case number 26454 Judges Cory, Peter deCarteret; McLachlin, Beverley; Iacobucci, Frank; Major, John C.; Bastarache, Michel On appeal from British Columbia Subjects Criminal law Notes SCC Case Information: 26454 Decision Content R. v. Campbell, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 533 Lee Edward Campbell Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Campbell File No.: 26454. 1998: December 11. Present: Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major and Bastarache JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia Criminal law ‑‑ Murder ‑‑ Accused and co‑accused convicted of second degree murder ‑‑ Substantial agreement with majority reasons of appeal court upholding accused’s conviction. APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (1998), 122 C.C.C. (3d) 44, [1998] B.C.J. No. 27 (QL), dismissing the accused’s appeal from his conviction for second degree murder. Appeal dismissed. Sheldon Goldberg, for the appellant. John M. Gordon, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by //Cory J.// 1 Cory J. ‑‑ We are all in substantial agreement with the reasons of Hall J.A. (1998), 122 C.C.C. (3d) 44, and this appeal as of right is therefore dismissed. Judgment accordingly. Solicitor for the appellant: Sheldon Goldberg, Vancouver. Solicitor for the respondent: The Attorney General of British Columbia, Vancouver.

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.

R. v. Campbell, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 533

Case cited

British Columbia Court of Appeal reasons (1998), 122 C.C.C. (3d) 44

Case cited

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.