Demenoff v. The Queen

FAUTEUx J.:-This is an appeal from a majority judgment of the Court of Appeall for the Province of British Columbia' dismissing the appeal of the appellant from his Fauteux, Abbott, Martland, Ritchie and Spence JJ. 1 (1963), 43 W.W.R. 610.

S.C.R.

119641 conviction for the offence described under s. 79(1) (a) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal is taken under s. 597(1) (a) of the Criminal Code which provides that:

Under these provisions, this Court is incompetent to entertain an appeal if the ground alleged in support thereof raises only a question of mixed law and fact. It is indeed well settled by the decisions of this Court that the ground of appeal must raise "a question of law in the strict sense", The King v. D6cary', and that this question of law, involved in the ratio decidendi, must be one in respect to which there is a disagreement expressed or implied between the minority and the majority in the Court of Appeal. Rozon v. The King .

In the case at bar, the majority and the minority disagreed with respect to the admissibility, as a voluntary statement, of a confession of guilt made by the appellant. It does not appear from the reasons of Davey J.A., dissenting, and from those of his colleagues Bird and Wilson JJ.A., of the majority, that this disagreement is based on a conflicting view of the law governing the admissibility of confessions; a careful consideration of the reasons for judgment reasonably indicates that the difference of opinion is attributable to different inferences being drawn by the dissenting Judge and by those of the majority from the accepted evidence relevant to the voluntariness of the confession. On this view of the matter, the ground of appeal alleged by the appellant does not raise a question of law in the strict sense. The Queen v. Fitton'.