Gauthier v. The King, [1931] SCR 416

Supreme Court of Canada

Gauthier v. The King, [1931] S.C.R. 416

Date: 1931-05-29

Oliver Gauthier (Plaintiff) Appellant;

and

His Majesty The King (Defendant) Respondent.

1931: May 29.

Present: Anglin C.J.C. and Newcombe, Rinfret, Lamont and Smith JJ.

ON APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ONTARIO.

Criminal Law—Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada—Jurisdiction—Cr., C., s. 1023—“Question of law”.

An appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Division, Ont. (40 Ont. W.N. 129) affirming (two judges dissenting) the appellant’s conviction, by Ross, Co. C.J., for stealing an automobile, was dismissed, on the ground that there was no jurisdiction to hear the appeal, the questions raised, and on which there was dissent in the Appellate Division, being all questions of fact, in regard to which there was no right of appeal to this Court under s. 1023, Cr. C.

Assuming that the question whether there was any evidence to support a conviction should be deemed a question of law, yet the question whether the proper inference has been drawn by the trial judge from facts established in evidence, is not a question of law but one of fact.

APPEAL from the judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario[1] dismissing (Mulock, C.J.O., and Grant, J.A., dissenting) the appellant’s appeal against his conviction, by Ross, Co. C.J., sitting in the County Court Judge’s Criminal Court of the County of Elgin, of stealing an automobile (Criminal Code, s. 377).

V.T. Foley for the appellant.

I.A. Humphries K.C. for the respondent.

On conclusion of the argument by counsel for the appellant, and without calling on counsel for the respondent, the judgment of the Court was orally delivered by

ANGLIN C.J.C.—The Court is unanimously of the opinion that it has no jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

On examination, it turns out that the questions raised are all questions of fact,—questions of the appreciation of evidence which were eminently for the trial judge, and in regard to which there is no right of appeal to this Court under section 1023, Cr. C.

[Page 417]

The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is much wider than ours in these matters, but, the mere fact that a judge dissents in that Court on matters of fact, on which it is entirely proper for him to do so, does not mean that there is foundation for an appeal to this Court, where the appeal is confined to matters of dissent in law below.

Assuming that the question, whether there was any evidence to support a conviction, should be deemed a question of law, the question whether the proper inference has been drawn by the trial judge from facts established in evidence, is really not a question of law, but purely a question of fact for his consideration.

Appeal dismissed.

Solicitor for the appellant: V.T. Foley.

Solicitor for the respondent: Wm. H. Price (Attorney-General for Ontario).