R. v. Goleski

2015 SCC 6 [2015] 1 SCR 399 Court SCC Decision date 2015-02-12 Docket 35862 English

PartiesGrant Anthony Goleski Appellant·Her Majesty The Queen Respondent

Counsel (4)

Solicitor for the appellant: Vincent Michaels Law Corporation, Vancouver.
Solicitor for the respondent: Attorney General of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario: Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Alberta: Attorney General of Alberta, Calgary.

Judges Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Rothstein, Marshall; Cromwell, Thomas Albert; Moldaver, Michael J.; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Wagner, Richard; Gascon, Clément

Delivered by The Court

On appeal from British Columbia

Subjects Criminal law

Contents

Reasons for Judgment — The Court

The Court — In our view, the British Columbia Court of Appeal correctly concluded that s. 794(2) of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 , properly interpreted, imposes a persuasive burden on the accused to prove an “exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification prescribed by law”. We do not think it appropriate to deal with the new issues raised by the interveners.

The appeal is dismissed.

Statutes and regulations cited

Criminal Code ¶ 1
- s. 794(2) as of 2015-02-12 ¶ 1