R. v. Dingwall

R. v. Dingwall
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
2021-10-08
Neutral citation
2021 SCC 35
Report
[2021] 2 SCR 942
Case number
39274
Judges
Wagner, Richard; Moldaver, Michael J.; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Côté, Suzanne; Brown, Russell; Rowe, Malcolm; Martin, Sheilah; Kasirer, Nicholas; Jamal, Mahmud
On appeal from
British Columbia
Notes
SCC Case Information
Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Citation: R. v. Dingwall, 2021 SCC 35, [2021] 2 S.C.R. 942
Appeal Heard: October 8, 2021 Judgment Rendered: October 8, 2021 Docket: 39274
Between:
Meranda Leigh Dingwall Appellant
and
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
And Between:
Christopher Ryan Russell Appellant
and
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
And Between:
Kelly Michael Richet Appellant
and
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Coram: Wagner C.J. and Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Côté, Brown, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer and Jamal JJ.
Unanimous Judgment Read By: (para. 1)
Rowe J.
Meranda Leigh Dingwall Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
‑ and ‑
Christopher Ryan Russell Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
‑ and ‑
Kelly Michael Richet Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Dingwall
2021 SCC 35
File No.: 39274.
2021: October 8.
Present: Wagner C.J. and Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Côté, Brown, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer and Jamal JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia
Criminal law — Unreasonable verdict — Evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Parties to offence — Three accused charged with aggravated assault and firearm offences in connection with drive‑by shooting — Crown’s case based entirely on circumstantial evidence — Trial judge holding that only rational inference to be drawn from evidence was that Crown proved all essential elements of charges beyond reasonable doubt and convicting accused — Majority of Court of Appeal dismissing conviction appeals and holding that verdicts not unreasonable — Convictions upheld.
Cases Cited
Referred to: Hodge’s Case (1838), 2 Lewin 227, 168 E.R. 1136.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46, s. 686(1)(b)(iii).
APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (Newbury, Willcock and Butler JJ.A.), 2020 BCCA 108, 386 C.C.C. (3d) 480, 462 D.L.R. (4th) 85, [2020] B.C.J. No. 603 (QL), 2020 CarswellBC 902 (WL), affirming the convictions entered by Abrioux J., 2017 BCSC 1457, [2017] B.C.J. No. 1616 (QL), 2017 CarswellBC 2266 (WL). Appeal dismissed.
Brent V. Bagnall, for the appellant Meranda Leigh Dingwall.
Kenneth R. Beatch and Roger P. Thirkell, for the appellant Christopher Ryan Russell.
Jason C. LeBlond, for the appellant Kelly Michael Richet.
Susanne Elliott and Geoffrey McDonald, for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
[1] Rowe J. — We would dismiss the appeal substantially for the reasons of Newbury J.A., at paras. 51 and 53 (2020 BCCA 108, 386 C.C.C. (3d) 480). We would add that notwithstanding a misstatement of law with respect to circumstantial evidence set out by the trial judge in para. 9(b) of his reasons (2017 BCSC 1457 (CanLII)), the trial judge properly applied the law with respect to circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, no reliance need be placed on the curative authority under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46. Finally, we would note that while the Court of Appeal, in paras. 39 and 50, addressed the rule in Hodge’s Case (1838), 2 Lewin 227, 168 E.R. 1136, the scope and application of that rule is not before this Court.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitor for the appellant Meranda Leigh Dingwall: Brent V. Bagnall, Vancouver.
Solicitors for the appellant Christopher Ryan Russell: Thirkell & Company, Abbotsford, B.C.
Solicitors for the appellant Kelly Michael Richet: Third Avenue Law, Prince George.
Solicitor for the respondent: Attorney General of British Columbia, Vancouver.