R. v. Reynolds, 2011 SCC 19, [2011] 1 SCR 693

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

Between:

Her Majesty The Queen

Appellant

and

Gordon Reynolds

Respondent

Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.

R. v. Reynolds, 2011 SCC 19, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 693

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                                  Appellant

v.

Gordon Reynolds                                                                                          Respondent

Indexed as:  R. v. Reynolds

2011 SCC 19

File No.:  33919.

2011:  April 19; 2011:  April 28.

Present:  McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario

                    Courts — Supreme Court of Canada — Jurisdiction — Appeal as of right — Whether appeal raises a question of law — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46, s. 693(1) (a).

                    Criminal law — Offences — Elements of offence — Obstructing justice — Whether suggestion of providing false doctor’s note was an integral part of overall attempt to dissuade witness from giving evidence by threat or other corrupt means — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46, s. 139(3) (a).

                    Held:  The appeal should be allowed and the convictions imposed by the trial judge restored.

                    APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (Sharpe, Blair and MacFarland JJ.A.), 2010 ONCA 576, 267 O.A.C. 149, 260 C.C.C. (3d) 35, [2010] O.J. No. 3908 (QL), 2010 CarswellOnt 6911, setting aside the accused’s convictions and entering acquittals.  Appeal allowed.

                    Deborah Krick, for the appellant.

                    Joseph Di Luca and Kevin Tilley, for the respondent.

                    The following is the judgment delivered by

[1]                              The Court — We find that the appeal raises a question of law and that the Court has jurisdiction.  On the merits, we agree with Blair J.A., dissenting in the Court of Appeal, that

                    [s]uggesting a facile, albeit deceitful, way of accomplishing the desired objective is just as much a part of the “persuasion package” as providing the incentive to carry out the desired objective in the first place.  Both form part of the same chain of events designed to convince Mr. Page not to testify and thus effect the sought-after result.  The suggestion of providing a false doctor’s note was not simply a logistical detail; it was an integral part of the overall persuasive package.  Its purpose was to delay and obstruct the course of justice.

                    (2010 ONCA 576, 267 O.A.C. 149, at para. 68)

[2]                              We would allow the appeal and restore the convictions imposed by the trial judge.

                    Appeal allowed.

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

                    Solicitors for the respondent:  Di Luca Copeland Davies, Toronto.