R. v. Kirton Date:, 2013 BCPC 311

Citation: R. v. Kirton Date: 20131025 2013 BCPC 0311 File No: 225057-2-C Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. KENNETH NOLAN KIRTON EXCERPTS FROM PROCEEDINGS RULING ON KIENAPPLE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE G. RIDEOUT Counsel for the Crown: T. Anderson Counsel for the Defendant: V. Desroches Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: October 25, 2013 Date of Judgment: October 25, 2013

[ 1 ] THE COURT: Thank you. [ 2 ] MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Your Honour. In the intervening period, I have had a time to review the case authority. I have also had a look at the Alberta Court of Appeal's decision that was referred to by the Supreme Court of Canada. Wounding is specifically referred to in the definition

section of robbery, so I think both charges got Kienapple 'd. [ 3 ] THE COURT: Would you agree, Ms. Desroches, with that

interpretation? That appears to be my

interpretation. [ 4 ] MS. DESROCHES: It is the law. [ 5 ] THE COURT: It is, thank you. [ 6 ] MS. DESROCHES: Agreed. [ 7 ] THE COURT: Thank you. I will follow the wording as noted by Madam Justice Ross. [ 8 ] Accordingly, with respect to Counts 3 and 4, there will be a finding of guilt but no conviction recorded, and on Count 4 it should be clear that the finding is in relation to assault simpliciter but no conviction is recorded. No sentence is to be imposed and a conditional stay is directed with respect to Counts 3 and 4 consistent with the reasoning of Madam Justice Ross in R. v. Goosehead , 2004 BCSC 1758 , at paragraph 5 . Thank you. (RULING CONCLUDED)