R. v. Ethier
The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered because the trial judge's sole reason for the obstructing a police officer conviction was conclusory and failed to consider a possible defence raised by the evidence, rendering the conviction unsafe.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C42635
- Parties
- Appellant: Reverend Brother Michel Ethier; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 25 April 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction Heard at Court of Appeal (heard September 26, 2005; Decision April 25, 2006)
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part; conviction for obstructing a police officer set aside and new trial ordered; other convictions upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Obstruction of a Police Officer, Possession of Marijuana, Breach of Recognizance, Adequacy of Reasons, New Trial
- 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
Reverend Brother Michel Ethier
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction Heard at Court of Appeal (heard September 26, 2005; Decision April 25, 2006)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge's reasons were adequate regarding the obstructing a police officer charge
- 2 Whether the trial judge failed to consider a possible defence raised by the evidence
- 3 Whether the conviction for obstructing a police officer is unsafe and requires a new trial
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered because the trial judge's sole reason for the obstructing a police officer conviction was conclusory and failed to consider a possible defence raised by the evidence, rendering the conviction unsafe.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part; conviction for obstructing a police officer set aside and new trial ordered; other convictions upheld.
Orders
- Appeal allowed with respect to the obstructing a police officer charge and a new trial ordered.
- Appeal dismissed with respect to possession of marijuana and breach of recognizance.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Ethier Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2006-04-25 Docket numbers C42635 Judges Rosenberg, Marc; Feldman, Kathryn N.; Juriansz, Russell G. Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20060425 DOCKET: C42635 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – REVEREND BROTHER MICHEL ETHIER (Appellant) BEFORE: ROSENBERG, FELDMAN and JURIANSZ JJ.A. COUNSEL: Reverend Brother Michel Ethier In person Mr. Burstein Duty Counsel Marie Comiskey for the respondent HEARD: September 26, 2005 ENDORSEMENT [1] On September 26, 2005, this court heard the appellant’s appeal from conviction for possession of marijuana, breach of recognizance and obstructing a police officer. The appellant was unrepresented but had the assistance of duty counsel, Mr. Burstein. At that time, the court dismissed the appeal from conviction for possession of marijuana and breach of recognizance. [2] However, at the hearing of the appeal, Mr. Burstein raised a ground of appeal concerning the adequacy of the trial judge’s reasons as they related to the obstructing a police officer charge. At the request of the Crown, we adjourned the hearing of the appeal with respect to that part of the appeal to permit Crown counsel to obtain a transcript of the evidence of Constable Boivin and consider her position on this new ground of appeal. [3] Crown counsel has now obtained the transcript and concedes that the appeal must be allowed and a new trial ordered. We agree with that concession. The appellant raised a possible defence to the obstructing police charge that was not considered by the trial judge. His sole reasons in respect to that charge were: “With regard to count three, likewise the elements for that offence have been made out.” [4] Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and a new trial ordered. In light of this disposition, the appellant’s motion to have the appeal allowed because of delay in obtaining the transcript is moot and is quashed. Signed: “M. Rosenberg J.A.” “K. Feldman J.A.” “R.G. Juriansz J.A.”