R. v. Sherry, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 602
Her Majesty The Queen Appellant
v.
Clinton Sherry Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Sherry
File No.: 25081.
1996: November 1.
Present: Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario
Criminal law ‑‑ Trial ‑‑ Fairness ‑‑ Trial judge not prejudging or appearing to prejudge credibility of witness ‑‑ Accused not prevented from making full answer and defence ‑‑ Crown’s cross‑examination not exceeding permissible limits.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1995), 26 O.R. (3d) 782, 45 C.R. (4th) 376, 103 C.C.C. (3d) 276, 87 O.A.C. 181, allowing the accused’s appeal from his convictions on charges of dangerous driving, impaired driving and driving while disqualified and ordering a new trial. Appeal allowed.
M. David Lepofsky, for the appellant.
Paul Burstein, for the respondent.
//Sopinka J.//
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
1 Sopinka J. ‑‑ It is essential that the trial judge ensure that the trial is fair and an appearance of unfairness be avoided.
2 In this case, however, for the reasons of Doherty J.A. dissenting, we agree with the appellant that the learned trial judge did not prejudge or appear to prejudge the credibility of the witness, Clause. Moreover, the respondent was not impeded from making full answer and defence.
3 With respect to propriety of the cross‑examination by counsel for the Crown, while it approached the limits of permissible cross‑examination, it did not exceed them.
4 There is no merit in any of the respondent’s alternative grounds.
5 The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside, and the judgment at trial is restored.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitor for the appellant: The Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto.
Solicitor for the respondent: Burstein & Paine, Toronto.