Staranchuk v. The Queen

Staranchuk v. The Queen
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
1985-05-03
Report
[1985] 1 SCR 439
Case number
17931
Judges
Dickson, Robert George Brian; Beetz, Jean; Estey, Willard Zebedee; McIntyre, William Rogers; Chouinard, Julien; Lamer, Antonio; Wilson, Bertha; Le Dain, Gerald Eric; La Forest, Gérard V.
On appeal from
Saskatchewan
Subjects
Constitutional law
Notes
SCC Case Information: 17931
Decision Content
Staranchuk v. The Queen, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 439
Nicholas Staranchuk Appellant;
and
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent.
File No.: 17931.
1985: May 3.
Present: Dickson C.J. and Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for saskatchewan
Constitutional law ‑‑ Charter of rights ‑‑ Self‑incrimination ‑‑ Bankruptcy offences ‑‑ False statements under oath ‑‑ Statements under oath admissible to prove perjury‑‑Section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms not applied.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, [1983] 6 W.W.R. 729, 8 C.C.C. (3d) 150, 6 C.R.R. 254, 48 C.B.R. (N.S.) 6, 28 Sask. R. 45, reversing a decision of Grotsky J., [1983] 2 W.W.R. 145, 3 C.C.C. (3d) 138, 4 C.R.R. 243, 45 C.B.R. (N.S.) 200, granting accused's application to prevent incriminating documents being entered as exhibits at trial. Appeal dismissed.
Drew S. Plaxton, for the appellant.
Barry D. Collins, Q.C., for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
1. The Chief Justice‑‑It will not be necessary to call upon you Mr. Collins. We agree with the following passage from the reasons of the Court of Appeal of Saskatchewan:
We believe that a distinction must be drawn between those occasions where a person in the course of providing evidence under oath is required, when answering truthfully, to disclose the commission by him, previously, of an offence (in which event, generally speaking, that evidence cannot subsequently be used against him) and those occasions where a person makes false statements, while under oath, as a result of which he is charged with giving false evidence. In the latter case the very essence of the offence, and its actus reus, is the giving of the false testimony. In this case the Crown sought to place the two exhibits into evidence to prove the actus reus of the offences charged and, if that evidence was otherwise admissible, it ought to have been received.
2. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Solicitor for the appellant: Drew S. Plaxton, Saskatoon.
Solicitor for the respondent: Roger Tassé, Ottawa.