R. v. Price, [1993] 3 SCR 633

R. v. Price, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 633

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                   Appellant

v.

Shane Leslie Price, a.k.a. Brown                                                      Respondent

and

The Attorney General of Canada

and the Attorney General for Ontario                                              Interveners

Indexed as:  R. v. Price

File No.:  23049.

1993:  October 5.

Present:  Lamer C.J. and La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta

                   Criminal law ‑‑ Evidence ‑‑ Fresh evidence ‑‑ Due diligence ‑‑ Court of Appeal properly admitting fresh evidence ‑‑ Due diligence to be applied in light of other relevant factors.

Cases Cited

                   Applied: R. v. Stolar, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 480; Palmer v. The Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759.

                   APPEAL from a judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal (1992), 131 A.R. 54, 25 W.A.C. 54, allowing the accused's appeal from his conviction on a charge of robbery, and ordering a new trial.  Appeal dismissed.

                   Jack Watson, for the appellant.

                   Marvin R. Bloos, for the respondent.

                   François B. Côté, Q.C., and Louise Viau, for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada.

                   S. Casey Hill, for the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario.

                   The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

                   Sopinka J. ‑‑ This is an appeal as of right.  Applying the principle set out in R. v. Stolar, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 480, and Palmer v. The Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759, we agree with the conclusion of the Court of Appeal that the evidence should be admitted as fresh evidence and the conclusion to direct a new trial.  While the exercise of due diligence is one of the significant factors, it is not applied strictly in criminal cases and must be applied in light of the other relevant factors.  The amount of weight to be given to this factor depends on the strength of the other factors, in other words, on the totality of the circumstances.

                   Under these circumstances, the constitutional questions do not arise and we need not consider them.

                   The appeal is dismissed.

                   Judgment accordingly.

                   Solicitor for the appellant:  The Attorney General for Alberta, Edmonton.

                   Solicitors for the respondent:  Beresh Depoe Cunningham, Edmonton.

                   Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada:  John C. Tait, Ottawa.

                   Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario:  The Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto.