R. v. D'Amico

R. v. D'Amico
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
2019-04-11
Neutral citation
2019 SCC 23
Report
[2019] 2 SCR 394
Judges
Wagner, Richard; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Moldaver, Michael J.; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Gascon, Clément; Côté, Suzanne; Brown, Russell; Rowe, Malcolm; Martin, Sheilah
On appeal from
Quebec
Notes
SCC Case information
Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Citation: R. v. D’Amico, 2019 SCC 23, [2019] 2 S.C.R. 394
Motion Heard: April 11, 2019 Order: April 11, 2019 Docket: 38512
Between:
Her Majesty The Queen
Applicant
and
Giovanni D’Amico
Respondent
Coram: Wagner C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon, Côté, Brown, Rowe and Martin JJ.
Reasons for Order: (paras. 1 to 3)
The Court
R. v. D’Amico, 2019 SCC 23, [2019] 2 S.C.R. 394
Her Majesty The Queen Applicant
v.
Giovanni D’Amico Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. D’Amico
2019 SCC 23
File No.: 38512.
2019: April 11.
Present: Wagner C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon, Côté, Brown, Rowe and Martin JJ.
motion to quash a notice of appeal as of right
Criminal law — Appeals — Appeals to Supreme Court of Canada — Appeal as of right — Dissent on question of law — Court of Appeal unanimous in dismissing accused’s appeal from convictions — Accused filing notice of appeal as of right based on disagreement between appellate judges on point of law — Crown bringing motion to quash notice of appeal as of right — Dissent giving rise to appeal as of right is disagreement that affects result — Motion granted — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 691(1) (a).
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 691(1) (a).
MOTION to quash a notice of appeal as of right from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal (Thibault, Vauclair and Ruel JJ.A.), 2019 QCCA 77, 375 C.C.C. (3d) 1, 427 C.R.R. (2d) 116, [2019] AZ-51562974, [2019] Q.J. No. 235 (QL), 2019 CarswellQue 268 (WL Can.), affirming the convictions entered by Rheault J.C.Q., 2014 QCCQ 21006, [2014] AZ-51260923, [2014] Q.J. No. 23322 (QL), 2014 CarswellQue 14694 (WL Can.). Motion granted.
Written submissions by Maude Payette, for the applicant.
Written submissions by Alexandre Bien-Aimé and Philipe G. Knerr, for the respondent.
The following is the order delivered by
[1] The Court — The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the motion to quash is granted.
[2] The motion to quash is granted.
[3] A dissent within the meaning of s. 691(1) (a) of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 , means a disagreement which affects the result. In this case, Vauclair J.A.’s disagreement does not go to the result and is better characterized as a concurring opinion or an opinion concurring in the result.
Motion granted.
Solicitor for the applicant: Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, Montréal.
Solicitors for the respondent: Shadley Bien-Aimé, Montréal.