Supreme Court Judgments

Decision Information

R. v. Mills

Collection Supreme Court Judgments
Date 1993-11-02
Report [1993] 4 SCR 277
Case number 23289
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 Manitoba
Subjects Criminal law
Notes SCC Case Information: 23289

Decision Content

R. v. Mills, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 277

 

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                   Appellant

 

v.

 

Ronald William Mills  Respondent

 

Indexed as:  R. v. Mills

 

File No.:  23289.

 

1993:  November 2.

 

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 manitoba

 

                   Criminal law ‑‑ Nuisance ‑‑ Offering indignities to human remains ‑‑ Gravedigger damaging coffins when refilling graves ‑‑ Evidence supporting trial judge's conclusion that gravedigger's conduct constitutes indignities to human remains.

 

                   APPEAL from a judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal (1992), 81 Man. R. (2d) 281, 30 W.A.C. 281, 77 C.C.C. (3d) 318, 16 C.R. (4th) 390, allowing the accused's appeal from his conviction on a charge of offering indignities to human remains contrary to s. 182  of the Criminal Code .  Appeal allowed.

 

                   S. J. Whitley, Q.C., for the appellant.

 

                   Pamela D. M. Smith, for the respondent.

 

                   The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

 

                   Lamer C.J. ‑‑ We find no error in the trial judge's judgment.  There was evidence upon which he could reasonably base his conclusions.

 

                   The appeal is accordingly allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the conviction is restored.

 

                   Judgment accordingly.

 

                   Solicitor for the appellant:  The Department of Justice, Winnipeg.

 

                   Solicitors for the respondent:  Gindin, Smith, Pearlman, Winnipeg.

 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.