R. v. Hicks
Court headnote
R. v. Hicks Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1990-01-31 Report [1990] 1 SCR 120 Case number 21020 Judges Lamer, Antonio; Wilson, Bertha; La Forest, Gérard V.; L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Sopinka, John; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; McLachlin, Beverley On appeal from Ontario Subjects Constitutional law Notes SCC Case Information: 21020 Decision Content R. v. Hicks, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 120 Edward Lloyd Hicks Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Hicks File No.: 21020. 1990: January 31. Present: Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and McLachlin JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario Constitutional law ‑‑ Charter of Rights ‑‑ Fundamental justice ‑‑ Self‑incrimination ‑‑ Right to remain silent. APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1988), 28 O.A.C. 118, 42 C.C.C. (3d) 394, 64 C.R. (3d) 68, 37 C.R.R. 151, 8 M.V.R. (2d) 191, setting aside the accused's acquittal[1] and ordering a new trial. Appeal dismissed. David Allan Harris, for the appellant. Casey Hill and John Marsland, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by Lamer J. ‑‑ It will not be necessary to hear from the Crown. We are ready to hand down judgment now. This appeal comes to us as of right. We are all of the view, for the reasons given by Mr. Justice Lacourcière for the Court of Appeal of Ontario, that a new trial be directed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant: Hillm…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.scc-csc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
R. v. Hicks Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1990-01-31 Report [1990] 1 SCR 120 Case number 21020 Judges Lamer, Antonio; Wilson, Bertha; La Forest, Gérard V.; L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Sopinka, John; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; McLachlin, Beverley On appeal from Ontario Subjects Constitutional law Notes SCC Case Information: 21020 Decision Content R. v. Hicks, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 120 Edward Lloyd Hicks Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Hicks File No.: 21020. 1990: January 31. Present: Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and McLachlin JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario Constitutional law ‑‑ Charter of Rights ‑‑ Fundamental justice ‑‑ Self‑incrimination ‑‑ Right to remain silent. APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1988), 28 O.A.C. 118, 42 C.C.C. (3d) 394, 64 C.R. (3d) 68, 37 C.R.R. 151, 8 M.V.R. (2d) 191, setting aside the accused's acquittal[1] and ordering a new trial. Appeal dismissed. David Allan Harris, for the appellant. Casey Hill and John Marsland, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by Lamer J. ‑‑ It will not be necessary to hear from the Crown. We are ready to hand down judgment now. This appeal comes to us as of right. We are all of the view, for the reasons given by Mr. Justice Lacourcière for the Court of Appeal of Ontario, that a new trial be directed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant: Hillmer & Harris, Oakville. Solicitor for the respondent: The Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto. [1] (1987), 2 W.C.B. (2d) 428.
Source: decisions.scc-csc.ca
Multani v Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys
[2006] 1 SCR 256