Supreme Court Judgments

Decision Information

Decision Content

  

 

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

 

Citation: R. v. Colling, 2018 SCC 23, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 692

Appeal heard: May 18, 2018

Judgment rendered: May 18, 2018

Docket: 37905

 

Between:

Jason Colling

Appellant

 

and

 

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent

 

 

 

 

Coram: Abella, Moldaver, Gascon, Brown and Rowe JJ.

 

Reasons for Judgment:

(para. 1)

Abella J. (Moldaver, Gascon, Brown and Rowe JJ. concurring)

 

 

 

 

 

 


R. v. Colling, 2018 SCC 23, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 692

 

 

 

Jason Colling                                                                                                   Appellant

v.

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                              Respondent

 

 

 

Indexed as: R. v. Colling

 

 

 

2018 SCC 23

 

 

 

File No.: 37905.

 

 

 

2018: May 18.

 

 

 

Present: Abella, Moldaver, Gascon, Brown and Rowe JJ.

 

 

 

on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta

 

                    Criminal law — Trial — Trial judge intervening in cross-examination of complainant during accused’s trial for sexual assault — Accused appealing conviction on ground that trial judge’s interventions rendered trial unfair and created reasonable apprehension of bias — Court of Appeal dismissing appeal — Conviction upheld.

 

                    APPEAL from a judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal (Berger, Martin and Strekaf JJ.A.), 2017 ABCA 286, 356 C.C.C. (3d) 417, 42 C.R. (7th) 422, [2017] A.J. No. 1370 (QL), 2017 CarswellAlta 2682 (WL Can.), affirming the conviction of the accused for sexual assault. Appeal dismissed.

 

                    Michael Bates and Nicole Rodych, for the appellant.

 

                    Iwona Kuklicz, for the respondent.

 

                    The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

[1]                              Abella J. — The trial judge’s conduct in intervening in the manner in which he did, by stepping into the shoes of counsel, raises serious concerns and ought not to be repeated. Overall, however, we are not persuaded that a miscarriage of justice has been shown. We are therefore of the view that a new trial is not warranted. The appeal is dismissed.

                    Judgment accordingly.

 

                    Solicitors for the appellant: Ruttan Bates, Calgary.

 

                    Solicitor for the respondent: Attorney General of Alberta, Calgary.

 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.