R. v. Dingwall, 2021 SCC 35

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: R. v. Dingwall, 2021 SCC 35 Appeal Heard: October 8, 2021 Judgment Rendered: October 8, 2021 Docket: 39274

Between: Meranda Leigh Dingwall Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent And Between: Christopher Ryan Russell Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent And Between: Kelly Michael Richet Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Coram: Wagner C.J. and Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Côté, Brown, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer and Jamal JJ. Unanimous Judgment Read By: (para. 1) Rowe J. Note: This document is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in the Canada Supreme Court Reports .

Meranda Leigh Dingwall Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent - and - Christopher Ryan Russell Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent - and - Kelly Michael Richet Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Dingwall 2021 SCC 35 File No.: 39274. 2021: October 8.

Present: Wagner C.J. and Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Côté, Brown, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer and Jamal JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia Criminal law — Unreasonable verdict — Evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Parties to offence — Three accusedcharged with aggravated assault and firearm offences in connection with drive-by shooting — Crown’s case based entirely oncircumstantial evidence — Trial judge holding that only rational inference to be drawn from evidence was that Crown proved allessential elements of charges beyond reasonable doubt and convicting accused — Majority of Court of Appeal dismissing convictionappeals and holding that verdicts not unreasonable — Convictions upheld.

Cases Cited Referred to: Hodge’s Case (1838), 1838 CanLII 1 (FOREP), 2 Lewin 227, 168 E.R. 1136. Statutes and Regulations Cited Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 686(1)(b)(iii). APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (Newbury, Willcock and Butler JJ.A.), 2020 BCCA108, 386 C.C.C. (3d) 480, 462 D.L.R. (4th) 85, [2020] B.C.J. No. 603 (QL), 2020 CarswellBC 902 (WL), affirming the convictionsentered by Abrioux J., 2017 BCSC 1457, [2017] B.C.J. No. 1616 (QL), 2017 CarswellBC 2266 (WL). Appeal dismissed. Brent V. Bagnall, for the appellant Meranda Leigh Dingwall. Kenneth R.

Beatch and Roger P. Thirkell, for the appellant Christopher Ryan Russell. Jason C. LeBlond, for the appellant Kelly Michael Richet. Susanne Elliott and Geoffrey McDonald, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by [1] Rowe J. — We would dismiss the appeal substantially for the reasons of Newbury J.A., at paras. 51 and 53. We would addthat notwithstanding a misstatement of law with respect to circumstantial evidence set out by the trial judge in para. 9(

b) of his reasons(2017 BCSC 1457 ), the trial judge properly applied the law with respect to circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, no relianceneed be placed on the curative authority under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. Finally, we would note thatwhile the Court of Appeal, in paras. 39 and 50, addressed the rule in Hodge’s Case (1838), 1838 CanLII 1 (FOREP), 2 Lewin 227, 168E.R. 1136, the scope and application of that rule is not before this Court. Judgment accordingly.

Solicitor for the appellant Meranda Leigh Dingwall: Brent V. Bagnall, Vancouver. Solicitors for the appellant Christopher Ryan Russell: Thirkell & Company , Abbotsford. Solicitors for the appellant Kelly Michael Richet: Third Avenue Law, Prince George. Solicitor for the respondent: Attorney General of British Columbia, Vancouver.