R. v. R.G.L., 2005 SCC 18, [2005] 1 SCR 288

                                                 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

Appellant

v.

R.L.

Respondent

Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.

______________________________

R. v. R.G.L., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 288, 2005 SCC 18

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                                  Appellant

v.

R.L.                                                                                                                Respondent

Indexed as:  R. v. R.G.L.

Neutral citation:  2005 SCC 18.

File No.:  30376.

2005:  February 11; 2005:  April 14.

Present:  McLachlin C.J. and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario

Criminal law — Appeal — Appeal as of right — Dissent in Court of Appeal not raising question of law — Appeal quashed.

Statutes and Regulations Cited

Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 , s. 693(1) (a).

APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (Weiler, Laskin and Feldman JJ.A.) (2004), 186 O.A.C. 355, 185 C.C.C. (3d) 55, [2004] O.J. No. 1944 (QL), setting aside the accused’s convictions  and ordering a new trial.  Appeal quashed.

Riun Shandler and Benita Wassenaar, for the appellant.

Paul Burstein, for the respondent.

The following is the judgment delivered by

1                                   The Court — We are of the view that the dissent in the Court of Appeal does not raise an issue of law, as required by s. 693(1) (a) of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46 .  Accordingly, the appeal is quashed.

Appeal quashed.

Solicitor for the appellant:  Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto.

Solicitors for the respondent:  Burstein, Unger, Toronto.