R. v. Sophonow
Court headnote
R. v. Sophonow Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1984-12-10 Report [1984] 2 SCR 524 Case number 18575 Judges Dickson, Robert George Brian; Estey, Willard Zebedee; McIntyre, William Rogers; Chouinard, Julien; Lamer, Antonio; Wilson, Bertha; Le Dain, Gerald Eric On appeal from Manitoba Subjects Criminal law Notes SCC Case Information: 18575 Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada R. v. Sophonow, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 524 Date: 1984-12-10 Her Majesty The Queen Appellant; and Thomas Sophonow Respondent. File No.: 18575. 1984: December 10. Present: Dickson C.J. and Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR MANITOBA Criminal law—Charge to jury—Theory of defence—Trial judge not adequately presenting the theory of defence to jury—Conviction quashed and new trial ordered—Section 613(I)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code inapplicable. APPEAL from a judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal (1984), 11 D.L.R. (4th) 24, 12 C.C.C. (3d) 272, 29 Man. R. (2d) 1, quashing the accused’s conviction and ordering a new trial. Appeal dismissed. J.G. Dangerfield, Q.C., and Stuart Whitley, for the appellant. G. Greg Brodsky, Q.C., and Marty Minuk, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by THE CHIEF JUSTICE—It will not be necessary to call upon you Mr. Brodsky and Mr. Minuk. We are in substantial agreement with the majority judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Judgment accordingly. So…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.scc-csc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
R. v. Sophonow Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1984-12-10 Report [1984] 2 SCR 524 Case number 18575 Judges Dickson, Robert George Brian; Estey, Willard Zebedee; McIntyre, William Rogers; Chouinard, Julien; Lamer, Antonio; Wilson, Bertha; Le Dain, Gerald Eric On appeal from Manitoba Subjects Criminal law Notes SCC Case Information: 18575 Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada R. v. Sophonow, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 524 Date: 1984-12-10 Her Majesty The Queen Appellant; and Thomas Sophonow Respondent. File No.: 18575. 1984: December 10. Present: Dickson C.J. and Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR MANITOBA Criminal law—Charge to jury—Theory of defence—Trial judge not adequately presenting the theory of defence to jury—Conviction quashed and new trial ordered—Section 613(I)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code inapplicable. APPEAL from a judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal (1984), 11 D.L.R. (4th) 24, 12 C.C.C. (3d) 272, 29 Man. R. (2d) 1, quashing the accused’s conviction and ordering a new trial. Appeal dismissed. J.G. Dangerfield, Q.C., and Stuart Whitley, for the appellant. G. Greg Brodsky, Q.C., and Marty Minuk, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by THE CHIEF JUSTICE—It will not be necessary to call upon you Mr. Brodsky and Mr. Minuk. We are in substantial agreement with the majority judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Judgment accordingly. Solicitor for the appellant: The Attorney General for the Province of Manitoba, Winnipeg. Solicitors for the respondent: Walsh, Micay & Company, Winnipeg.
Source: decisions.scc-csc.ca
R v Brown
[2022] 1 SCR 506