Supreme Court Judgments

Decision Information

R. v. Tempelaar

Collection Supreme Court Judgments
Date 1995-03-03
Report [1995] 1 SCR 760
Case number 23909
Judges Lamer, Antonio; La Forest, Gérard V.; L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Sopinka, John; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; Cory, Peter deCarteret; McLachlin, Beverley; Iacobucci, Frank; Major, John C.
On appeal from Ontario
Subjects Criminal law
Notes SCC Case Information: 23909

Decision Content

R. v. Tempelaar, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 760

 

Gordon Tempelaar                                                                             Appellant

 

v.

 

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                   Respondent

 

Indexed as:  R. v. Tempelaar

 

File No.:  23909.

 

1995:  March 3.

 

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

 

on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario

 

                          Criminal law ‑‑ Sentencing ‑‑ Jury's verdict supportable on any one of three factual bases ‑‑ Factual basis of verdict not particularized ‑‑ Whether judge entitled to sentence on the most aggravating basis.

 

                   APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal, rendered on July 14, 1993, dismissing an appeal against conviction and sentence.  Appeal dismissed.

 

                   Frank Addario and Louis Sokolov, for the appellant.

 

                   Scott C. Hutchison, for the respondent.

 

//Lamer C.J.//

 

                   The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

 

1                 Lamer C.J. ‑‑ We find no reason to depart from the law as regards sentencing as it now stands, and has for many years.  The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

 

                   Judgment accordingly.

 

                   Solicitors for the appellant:  Ruby & Edwardh, Toronto; Louis Sokolov, Toronto.

 

                   Solicitor for the respondent:  The Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.