Unanimous Judgment Read By — Rowe J.
Rowe J. — We would dismiss the appeal substantially for the reasons of Newbury J.A., at paras. 51 and 53 (2020 BCCA 108, 386 C.C.C. (3d) 480). We would add that notwithstanding a misstatement of law with respect to circumstantial evidence set out by the trial judge in para. 9(b) of his reasons (2017 BCSC 1457 (CanLII)), the trial judge properly applied the law with respect to circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, no reliance need be placed on the curative authority under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46. Finally, we would note that while the Court of Appeal, in paras. 39 and 50, addressed the rule in Hodge’s Case (1838), 2 Lewin 227, 168 E.R. 1136, the scope and application of that rule is not before this Court.
Cases cited
- of Newbury J.A. of Newbury J.A., at paras. 51 and 53 paras 51 and 53 ¶ 1
- 2020 BCCA 108 2020 BCCA 108 ¶ 1
- 2017 BCSC 1457 2017 BCSC 1457 ¶ 1
Statutes and regulations cited
-
Unresolved citations
- para. 9(b) ¶ 1