R. v. Fulop, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 695
Miklos Fulop Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
indexed as: r. v. fulop
File No.: 21372.
1990: December 10.
Present: Lamer C.J. and Sopinka, Gonthier, McLachlin and Stevenson JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal of ontario
Criminal law ‑‑ Telecommunications ‑‑ Decoders ‑‑ Decoders intended to access telecommunication facility without payment of lawful charge ‑‑ Possession of pay television decoders by television repair shop ‑‑ Use of decoder known ‑‑ Section extending to warehousepersons who know intended use of decoder ‑‑ Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑46, s. 327(1).
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑46, s. 327(1).
APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1988), 46 C.C.C. (3d) 427, 32 O.A.C. 44, setting aside acquittals by Borins Dist. Ct. J. Appeal dismissed.
James A. Ironside, for the appellant.
David Finley, for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
LAMER C.J. -- Thank you Mr. Ironside. It will not be necessary to hear from you Mr. Finley. The Court is prepared to hand down judgment now. Our colleague, Justice Sopinka, will pronounce judgment for the Court.
SOPINKA J. -- We are all in agreement with the unanimous reasons of the Court of Appeal with respect to their interpretation of s. 327(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑46 (formerly s. 287.1(1)). In view of this interpretation, we also agree that the Court of Appeal was right to set aside the acquittals and substitute convictions on the two counts charged. The appeal to this Court therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Shaw, McLellan & Ironside, Collingwood.
Solicitor for the respondent: The Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto.