Majority
English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by
Lamer C.J.
Lamer C.J. ‑‑ In view of the outcome of the appeal, it will not be necessary to decide on the motion for an extension of time and for leave to appeal on an additional ground of law, the motion being no longer applicable.
A majority of us are of the view that there was a violation of s. 686(1)(a)(iii) and that this appeal should accordingly be allowed primarily for the reasons given by Fish J.A. in the Court of Appeal. L'Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier JJ., dissenting, would dismiss the appeal for the reasons given by Nichols J.A. in the Court of Appeal.
The appeal is allowed and a new trial ordered.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Spagnoli, Denault, Corte, Gobeil, Bourassa & Côté, Montréal.
Solicitor for the respondent: Michel Ayotte, Sherbrooke.
Statutes and regulations cited
-
Unresolved citations
- s. 686(1)(a)(iii)