Supreme Court Judgments

Decision Information

R. v. Hawrish

Collection Supreme Court Judgments
Date 1995-03-21
Report [1995] 1 SCR 856
Case number 23898
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 Saskatchewan
Subjects Criminal law
Notes SCC Case Information: 23898

Decision Content

R. v. Hawrish, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 856

 

Ernest A. Hawrish                                                                              Appellant

 

v.

 

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                   Respondent

 

Indexed as:  R. v. Hawrish

 

File No.:  23898.

 

1995:  March 21.

 

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 saskatchewan

 

                   Criminal law ‑‑ Theft ‑‑ Fraud ‑‑ Sufficient evidence to support convictions ‑‑ No miscarriage of justice.

 

                   APPEAL from a judgment of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (1993), 113 Sask. R. 214, 52 W.A.C. 214, dismissing the accused's appeal from his convictions by Grotsky J. for theft and fraud (1991), 95 Sask. R. 100. Appeal dismissed.

 

                   A. G. Henderson, Q.C., and J. M. Sullivan, for the appellant.

                   T. R. Hinz, for the respondent.

 

//Lamer C.J.//

 

                   The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

 

1                 Lamer C.J. ‑‑ There was evidence sufficient to support the convictions entered by the trial judge and, no prejudice being argued, there was no miscarriage of justice.

 

2                 The appeal is dismissed.

 

                   Judgment accordingly.

 

                   Solicitors for the appellant:   Davis & Company, Vancouver.

 

                   Solicitor for the respondent:  The Department of Justice, Public Prosecutions Branch, Saskatoon.

 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.