R. v. Savard

R. v. Savard
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
2017-04-03
Neutral citation
2017 SCC 21
Report
[2017] 1 SCR 400
Case number
36908
Judges
Wagner, Richard; Gascon, Clément; Côté, Suzanne; Brown, Russell; Rowe, Malcolm
On appeal from
Quebec
Notes
SCC Case Information: 36908
Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Citation: R. v. Savard, 2017 SCC 21, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 400
Appeal heard: March 31, 2017
Judgment rendered: March 31, 2017
Docket: 36908
Between:
Jean-Louis Savard
Appellant
and
Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent
Official English Translation
Coram: Wagner, Gascon, Côté, Brown and Rowe JJ.
Reasons for Judgment:
(paras. 1 to 4)
Wagner J. (Gascon, Côté, Brown and Rowe JJ. concurring)
R. v. Savard, 2017 SCC 21, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 400
Jean-Louis Savard Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Savard
2017 SCC 21
File No.: 36908.
2017: March 31.
Present: Wagner, Gascon, Côté, Brown and Rowe JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec
Criminal law — Evidence — Assessment — Credibility of witnesses — Court of Appeal finding that guilty verdict was reasonable and compatible with evidence — Convictions affirmed.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal (Chamberland, Morin and Dutil JJ.A.), 2016 QCCA 380, [2016] AZ-51259810, [2016] J.Q. no 1608 (QL), 2016 CarswellQue 1699 (WL Can.), affirming convictions for indecent assault and gross indecency entered by Boudreault J., 2014 QCCQ 10256, [2014] AZ-51117846, [2014] J.Q. no 11811 (QL), 2014 CarswellQue 11286 (WL Can.). Appeal dismissed, Côté J. dissenting.
Christian Maltais, for the appellant.
Sébastien Vallée and Mélanie Paré, for the respondent.
English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by
[1] Wagner J. — This appeal as of right is based on the dissent of one judge in the Quebec Court of Appeal.
[2] The appellant was found guilty by Judge Michel Boudreault of the Court of Quebec of having committed a number of sexual offences on his nephews and niece dating back to the 1960s.
[3] A majority of the judges of this Court agree with the reasons of the majority of the Court of Appeal. Côté J. would have ordered a new trial for the reasons of the dissenting judge in the Court of Appeal.
[4] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Christian Maltais, Avocats, Baie-Comeau.
Solicitor for the respondent: Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions of Quebec, Chicoutimi.