Walden v. The Queen
Court headnote
Walden v. The Queen Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1980-12-03 Report [1980] 2 SCR 365 Judges Martland, Ronald; Ritchie, Roland Almon; Estey, Willard Zebedee; Chouinard, Julien; Lamer, Antonio On appeal from British Columbia Subjects Criminal law Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Walden v. The Queen, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 365 Date: 1980-12-03 Frank Walden Appellant; and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent. 1980: December 3. Present: Martland, Ritchie, Estey, Chouinard and Lamer JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Criminal law—Jurisdiction—Alleged contravention of s. 3(1) of the Postal Services Continuation Act, 1978 (Can.), c. 1—Charge of contravening Act of Parliament—Whether any evidence before trial judge on which jury might reasonably conclude charge proved—Criminal Code, R.S.C 1970, c. C-34, s. 115(1). APPEAL by the accused from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia[1], allowing the Crown’s appeal from a directed verdict of acquittal on a charge under s. 115(1) of the Criminal Code[2] and directing that a new trial be held. Appeal dismissed. S. Rush, for the appellant. M.M. de Weerdt, Q.C., and W. Heinrich, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by MARTLAND J.—We are all in agreement with the specific reasons stated by McFarlane J.A. in the Court of Appeal for allowing the Crown’s appeal to that Court. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. Judgment accordingly. Solicitor for the appellant: Stuart R…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.scc-csc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Walden v. The Queen Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1980-12-03 Report [1980] 2 SCR 365 Judges Martland, Ronald; Ritchie, Roland Almon; Estey, Willard Zebedee; Chouinard, Julien; Lamer, Antonio On appeal from British Columbia Subjects Criminal law Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Walden v. The Queen, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 365 Date: 1980-12-03 Frank Walden Appellant; and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent. 1980: December 3. Present: Martland, Ritchie, Estey, Chouinard and Lamer JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Criminal law—Jurisdiction—Alleged contravention of s. 3(1) of the Postal Services Continuation Act, 1978 (Can.), c. 1—Charge of contravening Act of Parliament—Whether any evidence before trial judge on which jury might reasonably conclude charge proved—Criminal Code, R.S.C 1970, c. C-34, s. 115(1). APPEAL by the accused from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia[1], allowing the Crown’s appeal from a directed verdict of acquittal on a charge under s. 115(1) of the Criminal Code[2] and directing that a new trial be held. Appeal dismissed. S. Rush, for the appellant. M.M. de Weerdt, Q.C., and W. Heinrich, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by MARTLAND J.—We are all in agreement with the specific reasons stated by McFarlane J.A. in the Court of Appeal for allowing the Crown’s appeal to that Court. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. Judgment accordingly. Solicitor for the appellant: Stuart Rush, Vancouver. Solicitor for the respondent: Roger Tassé, Ottawa. [1] Not yet reported. [2] (1979), 8 C.R. (3d) 263.
Source: decisions.scc-csc.ca
R v Brown
[2022] 1 SCR 506