R. v. Lacroix

R. v. Lacroix
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
2008-12-04
Neutral citation
2008 SCC 67
Report
[2008] 3 SCR 509
Case number
32445
Judges
McLachlin, Beverley; Binnie, William Ian Corneil; LeBel, Louis; Deschamps, Marie; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Charron, Louise; Rothstein, Marshall
On appeal from
Quebec
Subjects
Criminal law
Notes
SCC Case Information: 32445
Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Citation: R. v. Lacroix, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 509, 2008 SCC 67
Date: 20081204
Docket: 32445
Between:
Philippe Lacroix
Appellant
and
Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent
Official English Translation
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ.
Reasons for Judgment:
(paras. 1 to 3)
The Court
______________________________
R. v. Lacroix, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 509, 2008 SCC 67
Philippe Lacroix Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Lacroix
Neutral citation: 2008 SCC 67.
File No.: 32445.
2008: November 21; 2008: December 4.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec
Criminal law — Appeals — Unreasonable verdict — Accused convicted on 15 counts of sexual assault — Majority of Court of Appeal affirming convictions — Whether verdicts unreasonable.
Held: The appeal should be allowed. A verdict of acquittal is substituted on each of the counts on which the accused was convicted.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal (Chamberland, Dufresne and Côté JJ.A.), SOQUIJ AZ-50467234, [2008] Q.J. No. 195 (QL), 2008 CarswellQue 124, 2008 QCCA 78, affirming a decision of Garneau J., SOQUIJ AZ‑50362829, [2006] Q.J. No. 2572 (QL), 2006 CarswellQue 2530, 2006 QCCQ 2138. Appeal allowed.
Annie Émond, for the appellant.
Sophie Lamarre and Carole Lebeuf, for the respondent.
English version of the judgment delivered by
[1] The Court — The appellant appeals to the Court as of right. The issue is whether the guilty verdicts entered by the trial judge are unreasonable. We agree with Chamberland J.A.’s conclusion in dissent that [translation] “[t]he circumstantial evidence has so little weight that it was unreasonable to convict the appellant of the assault on L.V.” ([2008] Q.J. No. 195 (QL), 2008 QCCA 78, at para. 46).
[2] We also agree with Chamberland J.A. (at para. 47) that as a result of this conclusion, the Court need not deal with the similar fact evidence, [translation] “since it was that verdict that led the trial judge to find the appellant guilty of the other 14 assaults, all of which had been committed by a single man”.
[3] Consequently, the appeal is allowed and a verdict of acquittal is substituted on each of the counts on which the appellant was convicted.
Appeal allowed.
Solicitors for the appellant: Boro, Polnicky, Lighter, Montréal.
Solicitor for the respondent: Poursuites criminelles et pénales du Québec, Montréal.