Supreme Court Judgments

Decision Information

Decision Content

R. v. Jack, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 310


Brian Gordon Jack                                                                            Appellant




Her Majesty The Queen                                                                   Respondent


Indexed as:  R. v. Jack


File No.:  23731.


1994:  May 24.


Present:  Lamer C.J. and L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci and Major JJ.


on appeal from the court of appeal for manitoba


                   Criminal law ‑‑ Charge to jury ‑‑ Accused acquitted of second degree murder after second trial ‑‑ Trial judge's slip in recharge amounting to serious misdirection ‑‑ Order for new trial upheld.


                   Criminal law ‑‑ Evidence ‑‑ Timely disclosure ‑‑ Crown making full disclosure before second trial ‑‑ Court of Appeal having no jurisdiction to order stay for failure to disclose since no application had been made to trial court ‑‑ Order for new trial not amounting to abuse of process.


Cases Cited


                   Referred to:  R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326.


                   APPEAL from a judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal (1993), 88 Man. R. (2d) 93, 51 W.A.C. 93, allowing the Crown's appeal from the accused's acquittal on a charge of second degree murder.  Appeal dismissed.


                   Richard J. Wolson and John A. McAmmond, for the appellant.


                   Richard A. Saull, for the respondent.


                   The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by


                   Sopinka J. ‑‑ We agree with the Chief Justice of Manitoba that in the circumstances the slip in the charge to the jury amounted to a serious misdirection.  We are satisfied with the requisite degree of certainty that, absent the error, the verdict would not inevitably have been the same.


                   With respect to the failure of the respondent to make timely disclosure, in R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326, at p. 348, we stated:  ". . . when a court of appeal is called upon to review a failure to disclose, it must consider whether such failure impaired the right to make full answer and defence".  In our opinion, full disclosure had been made before the second trial.  No application for a stay was made to the trial court on the second trial.  The Court of Appeal therefore had no jurisdiction to order a stay on this ground and we are in the same position.  This is a matter that should be dealt with at trial and, if the failure to disclose impaired the appellant's ability to make full answer and defence, this matter can be raised in the new trial ordered by the Court of Appeal.


                   We agree with the Court of Appeal that ordering a new trial in the circumstances of this case is not one of those "clearest of cases" which would amount to an abuse of process.


                   The appeal is dismissed.


                   Judgment accordingly.


                   Solicitors for the appellant:  Walsh, Micay & Company, Winnipeg.


                   Solicitor for the respondent:  The Department of Justice, Winnipeg.



For 20 years now, the Lexum site has been the main public source for Supreme Court decisions.




Lexbox allows you to keep track of Supreme Court decisions. Store and share your research + create personalized alerts.

Get started with Lexbox


Twitter Notices

Get real-time notices of new Supreme Court decisions via Twitter.

Follow Lexum on Twitter