Supreme Court Judgments

Decision Information

Decision Content


                                                 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA



Citation:  R. v. Hazout, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 361, 2006 SCC 42


Date:  20061005

Docket:  31129



Marc Hazout



Her Majesty the Queen



Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Fish and Rothstein JJ.



Reasons for Judgment:

(para. 1)



The Court




R. v. Hazout, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 361, 2006 SCC 42


Marc Hazout                                                                                                     Appellant




Her Majesty The Queen                                                                               Respondent


Indexed as:  R. v. Hazout


Neutral citation:  2006 SCC 42.


File No.:  31129.


2006:  June 22; 2006:  October 5.


Present:  McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Fish and Rothstein JJ.


on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario


Criminal law — Appeals to Supreme Court of Canada — Appeal as of right — No dissent on question of law alone — Appeal quashed.


Held:  The appeal should be quashed.


Statutes and Regulations Cited


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


APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (Weiler, Simmons and Gillese JJ.A.) (2005), 199 C.C.C. (3d) 474, 201 O.A.C. 235, [2005] O.J. No. 3550 (QL), upholding the accused’s convictions.  Appeal quashed.


Marie Henein and Jennifer Gleitman, for the appellant.


Robert Gattrell, for the respondent.


The following is the judgment delivered by


1                                   The Court  —  We are of the view that the dissent relied upon by the appellant as the foundation of his appeal as of right under s. 691(1) (a) of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 , cannot be construed as a dissent on a question of law alone.  Accordingly, this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal without leave, which in this case was not sought.  The appeal is quashed.


Appeal quashed.


Solicitors for the appellant:  Henein & Associates, Toronto.


Solicitor for the respondent:  Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto.

 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.