Supreme Court Judgments

Decision Information

Decision Content

R. v. Pilon, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1422


Richard Pilon                      Appellant




Her Majesty The Queen    Respondent


indexed as:  r. v. pilon


File No.:  21606.


1990:  December 3; 1990:  December 13.


Present:  La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and McLachlin JJ.


application to quash an appeal


    Criminal law ‑‑ Appeals to Supreme Court of Canada ‑‑ Appeal as of right ‑‑ Accused convicted of murder ‑‑ Dissent in Court of Appeal not on question of law ‑‑ Application to quash appeal granted ‑‑ Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑46 , s. 691(1) (a).


Statutes and Regulations Cited


Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑46 , s. 691(1) (a).



    Jean‑Claude Hébert, for the appellant.


    Jean‑François Dionne, for the respondent.


    APPLICATION to quash an appeal from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal (1989), 29 Q.A.C. 31, dismissing the accused's appeal from his conviction for murder.  Application granted.


//The Court//


    The following is the judgment delivered by


    THE COURT ‑‑ The present petition seeks to have quashed an appeal entered as of right pursuant to s. 691(1) (a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑46 , that is on a question of law on which it is claimed a judge of the Court of Appeal dissents.  In instructing the jury, the trial judge must explain the applicable law in a clear and accurate manner as it relates to the facts.  In doing this, he must choose judiciously from the evidence presented to discuss particular points with which the jury might need help.  It was in respect of this second task that the dissenting judge found the charge inadequate.  By agreeing with the majority on all other points on appeal, he indicated that the trial judge had presented the law in an adequate way.  His dissent was, thus, not on a question of law but on his appreciation of the adequacy of the facts selected by the trial judge in performing the second task mentioned.  The motion to quash the appeal is therefore granted.


    Application granted.


    Solicitor for the appellant:  Jean‑Claude Hébert, Montréal.


    Solicitor for the respondent:  Jean‑François Dionne, Ste‑Foy.



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