R. v. Natewayes, 2017 SCC 5, [2017] 1 SCR 91

  

 

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

 

Citation: R. v. Natewayes, 2017 SCC 5, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 91

Appeal heard: January 19, 2017 Judgment rendered: January 19, 2017 Docket: 36793

 

Between:

Tasia M. Natewayes

Appellant

 

and

 

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent

 

 

 

 

Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Gascon, Côté, Brown and Rowe JJ.

 

Reasons for Judgment: (para. 1)

McLachlin C.J. (Abella, Moldaver, Gascon, Côté, Brown and Rowe JJ. concurring)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

R. v. Natewayes, 2017 SCC 5, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 91

 

 

 

Tasia M. Natewayes                                                                                       Appellant

v.

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                              Respondent

 

 

 

Indexed as:  R. v. Natewayes

 

 

 

2017 SCC 5

 

 

 

File No.:  36793.

 

 

 

2017:  January 19.

 

 

Present:  McLachlin C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Gascon, Côté, Brown and Rowe JJ.

 

 

 

on appeal from the court of appeal for saskatchewan

 

                    Criminal law — Evidence — Assessment — Accused driving group of men to house so they could assault one individual — Fatal stabbing of another individual occurring during home invasion committed by men — Accused charged with manslaughter and breaking and entering with intent to commit indictable offence — Acquittal on manslaughter charge set aside by Court of Appeal and conviction entered — Court of Appeal concluding that it was open to trial judge to find that accused knew home invasion was about to happen — Accused’s conviction for manslaughter upheld.

 

                    APPEAL from a judgment of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (Richards C.J. and Caldwell and Whitmore JJ.A.), 2015 SKCA 120, 467 Sask. R. 308, 651 W.A.C. 308, [2015] S.J. No. 612 (QL), 2015 CarswellSask 722 (WL Can.), setting aside the accused’s conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit an indictable offence and entering a conviction for manslaughter. Appeal dismissed.

 

                    Peter A. Abrametz, for the appellant.

 

                    W. Dean Sinclair, Q.C., for the respondent.

 

                    The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

[1]                              The Chief Justice — We are all of the view that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons of Chief Justice Richards in the Court of Appeal.

                    Judgment accordingly.

 

                    Solicitor for the appellant:  Peter A. Abrametz Legal Professional Corporation, Prince Albert.

 

                    Solicitor for the respondent:  Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Regina.