Canada Judgment

Supreme Court of Canada

R. v. Moore

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Applying R. v. Seaboyer, a preliminary inquiry judge lacked jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of s.279(3); because there was some evidence to support the charge of unlawful confinement, the committal order was properly upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed; committal order upheld; constitutional issue not decided by the Court

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order committing the appellant for trial on the unlawful confinement charge is affirmed
  • No determination is made on the constitutionality of Criminal Code s.279(3) at the preliminary inquiry stage

02

Material facts

Parties

David Paul Moore

Appellant Counsel: Marc Rosenberg

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent Counsel: Darrell E. Coombs

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Appeal Division

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The appellant argued that the preliminary inquiry judge erred by failing to quash the committal order, raising that issues around s.279(3) and its compatibility with the Charter affected the validity of the committal and that there was insufficient evidence to commit him for trial.
Respondent
The Crown argued that, pursuant to R. v. Seaboyer, preliminary inquiry judges do not have jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of legislation under the Charter and that there was some evidence to justify committal for trial on the unlawful confinement charge.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    R. v. Seaboyer, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577

    A judge presiding at a preliminary inquiry does not have jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of legislation under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms at that stage.

  2. 02

    Criminal law principle applied in this judgment (R. v. Moore, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 619)

    A committal for trial will stand where there is some evidence upon which a reasonable jury properly instructed could convict (standard for committal).

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Applying R. v. Seaboyer, a preliminary inquiry judge lacked jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of s.279(3); because there was some evidence to support the charge of unlawful confinement, the committal order was properly upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed; committal order upheld; constitutional issue not decided by the Court

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order committing the appellant for trial on the unlawful confinement charge is affirmed
  • No determination is made on the constitutionality of Criminal Code s.279(3) at the preliminary inquiry stage

Source and reliance status

Supreme Court of Canada · 28 February 1992

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· 28 February 1992

[1992] 1 SCR 619

R. v. Moore Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1992-02-28 Report [1992] 1 SCR 619 Case number 22169 Judges La Forest, Gérard V.; L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Sopinka, John; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; Cory, Peter deCarteret; McLachlin, Beverley; Stevenson, William On appeal from Prince Edward Island Subjects Constitutional law Criminal law Notes SCC Case Information: 22169 Decision Content R. v. Moore, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 619 David Paul Moore Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Moore File No.: 22169. 1992: February 28. Present: La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Stevenson JJ. on appeal from the prince edward island supreme court, appeal division Constitutional law ‑‑ Charter of Rights ‑‑ Court of competent jurisdiction ‑‑ Preliminary inquiry ‑‑ Judge presiding at preliminary inquiry having no jurisdiction to decide whether legislation violates Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ‑‑ Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑46, s. 279(3) . Criminal law ‑‑ Preliminary inquiry ‑‑ Jurisdiction ‑‑ Judge presiding at preliminary inquiry having no jurisdiction to decide whether legislation violates Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ‑‑ Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑46, s. 279(3) . Criminal law ‑‑ Committal for trial ‑‑ Some evidence upon which accused could be committed for trial on charge of unlawful confinement ‑‑ Accused's application to quash committal order properly dismissed ‑‑ Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑46, s. 279(3) . Cases Cited Applied: R. v. Seaboyer, [1991] 2 S.C.R.

577. Statutes and Regulations Cited Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑46, s. 279(3) . APPEAL from a judgment of the Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Appeal Division (1990), 86 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 115, 268 A.P.R. 115, 60 C.C.C. (3d) 286, dismissing the accused's appeal from a judgment of McQuaid J. (1989), 78 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 284, 244 A.P.R. 284, 51 C.C.C. (3d) 566, dismissing his application to quash an order that he stand trial on a charge of unlawful confinement. Appeal dismissed. Marc Rosenberg, for the appellant. Darrell E. Coombs, for the respondent. //La Forest J.// The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by La Forest J. ‑‑ It will not be necessary to hear from you Mr. Coombs. The Court is ready to hand down judgment. The judgment will be pronounced by Mr. Justice Sopinka. //Sopinka J.// Sopinka J. ‑‑ The judge at the preliminary hearing was correct in holding that he did not have jurisdiction to decide whether s. 279(3) violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . In this regard, this case is governed by this Court's decision in R. v. Seaboyer, [1991] 2 S.C.R.

577. Accordingly, it is not necessary for this Court to deal with the constitutional question. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that there was some evidence upon which the appellant could be committed for trial, and the preliminary court judge, therefore, did not exceed his jurisdiction. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant: Greenspan, Rosenberg and Buhr, Toronto. Solicitor for the respondent: Darrell E. Coombs, Charlottetown.

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. Seaboyer, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577

Case cited

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, s. 279(3)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.