Arbour J.
Arbour J. – We are of the view that the trial judge did not commit any error of law that would give rise to a Crown appeal under s. 676(1) (a) of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 , and that the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in substituting its own assessment of the facts for that of the trial judge.
The trial judge correctly directed himself in law and conducted a detailed examination of the evidence. His extensive reasons show that he considered the evidence in its totality, assessed the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before him in order to arrive at findings of fact that were not unreasonable. His analysis does not reveal any error within the meaning of R. v. B. (G.), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 57, and R. v. Morin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 286.
Accordingly the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the acquittal of the appellants is restored. Madame Justice L’Heureux-Dubé, dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal for the reasons given by Chamberland J.A. in the Court of Appeal.
Cases cited
- R. v. B. (G.) 20905, 20919, 20931, 20932, 20933-1990-06-07 ¶ 2
- R. v. Morin 22530-1992-01-30 ¶ 2