Help

Supreme Court Judgments

Decision Information

Decision Content

Terlecki v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 483

 

Henry Terlecki    Appellant;

 

and

 

Her Majesty The Queen     Respondent.

 

File No.: 17641.

 

1985: December 12.

 

Present: Dickson C.J. and Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and La Forest JJ.

 

 

on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta

 

                   Criminal law ‑‑ Procedure ‑‑ Kienapple principle ‑‑ Driving offences ‑‑ Accused found guilty on charges of “impaired driving” (s. 234) and “driving over .08” (s. 236) ‑‑ Conviction registered in Provincial Court for “driving over .08” but not for “impaired driving” ‑‑ Acquittal entered on appeal to Court of Queen’s Bench ‑‑ Court of Appeal allowing appeal to extent of remitting matters to Court of Queen’s Bench for determination on whether or not conviction for “impaired driving” be entered ‑‑ Not entering conviction equivalent to entering stay on charge ‑‑ Appeal dismissed and matter remitted to Provincial Court for determination ‑‑ Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C‑34, s. 234.

 


Statutes and Regulations Cited

 

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C‑34, s. 234.

 

 

                   APPEAL from a judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal (1983), 4 C.C.C. (3d) 522, allowing an appeal (to the extent of remitting a related but stayed charge for determination by the Court of Queen's Bench) from an acquittal entered by the Court of Queen's Bench on appeal from a conviction entered by Stevenson Prov. Ct. J. Appeal dismissed.

 

                   John E. Johnson, for the appellant.

 

                   Bruce Duncan, for the respondent.

 

                   The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

 

1.                The Chief Justice‑‑We dismiss the appeal. We find no error in the Court of Appeal in construing the trial judge's not registering a conviction on the count of impaired driving under s. 234  of the Criminal Code  as equivalent to entering a stay on the charge. We differ from the Court of Appeal only in that we would return the matter back to Stevenson Prov. Ct. J. rather than Moshansky J., the Appeal Court Judge, to consider whether to register a conviction on the s. 234  charge and if so, to impose sentence.

 

                   Judgment accordingly.

 

                   Solicitors for the appellant: MacPherson and Associates, Calgary.

 

                   Solicitor for the respondent: Attorney General for Alberta, Edmonton.

 

 

 

Lexum

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


>

Decisia

 

Efficient access to your decisions

Decisia is an online service for courts, boards and tribunals aiming to provide easy and professional access to their decisions from their own website.

Learn More