R. v. J.M.

2019 SCC 24 [2019] 2 SCR 396 Court SCC Decision date 2019-04-18 Heard 2019-04-18 Docket 38483 English

PartiesHer Majesty The Queen Appellant·J.M. Respondent·Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario) Intervener

Counsel (6)

[1] Abella J. — We are all of the view that the failure to attend a trial is not presumptively after-the-fact conduct. Its admissibility must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
[2] A majority, however, is of the view that the appeal should be allowed substantially for the reasons of Justice Huscroft. Justice Karakatsanis and I would dismiss the appeal for the reasons of Justice Nordheimer.
[3] The appeal is therefore allowed and the convictions are restored.
Solicitor for the appellant: Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto.
Solicitors for the respondent: Shore Johnston Hyslop Day, Ottawa.
Solicitors for the intervener: Edelson & Friedman, Ottawa.

Judges Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Côté, Suzanne; Rowe, Malcolm; Martin, Sheilah

Delivered by Abella J. (Karakatsanis, Côté, Rowe and Martin JJ. concurring)

On appeal from Ontario

Contents

Reasons for Judgment — Abella J. (Karakatsanis, Côté, Rowe and Martin JJ. concurring)

Abella J. — We are all of the view that the failure to attend a trial is not presumptively after-the-fact conduct. Its admissibility must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

A majority, however, is of the view that the appeal should be allowed substantially for the reasons of Justice Huscroft. Justice Karakatsanis and I would dismiss the appeal for the reasons of Justice Nordheimer.

The appeal is therefore allowed and the convictions are restored.