Cour supreme du Canada
La Reine c. Meunier, [1966] S.C.R. 399
Date: 1966-06-15
Sa Majesté La Reine Appelante;
et
Adrien Meunier Intimé.
1966: 15 juin; 1966: 15 juin.
Coram : Le Juge en Chef Taschereau et les Juges Fauteux, Abbott, Martland et Spence.
EN APPEL DE LA COUR DU BANC DE LA REINE, PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC
APPEL de la Couronne d'un jugement majoritaire de la Cour du banc de la reine, Province de Québec[1], ordonnant un nouveau procès. Appel rejeté.
Marc Brière, pour l'appelante.
Dollard Dansereau, C.R., et Guy Guérin, pour l'intimé.
Lorsque le procureur de l'accusé eut terminé sa plaidoirie, la Cour a rendu le jugement suivant:
LE JUGE EN CHEF (oralement): — M. Brière a dit tout ce qui pouvait être dit, mais nous croyons que cet appel ne peut réussir. Nous sommes satisfaits d'adopter les raisons de M. le Juge Casey.
L'appel doit être rejeté.
Criminal law — Perjury — Trial — Presence of accused — Accused ordered to leave courtroom during his cross-examination to discuss an objection to a question put to him — Criminal Code, 1953-54 (Can.), c. 51,ss. 557(1), 592(1)(b)(iii).
During his trial on a charge of perjury, and while in the witness-box, the accused was ordered by the trial judge to leave the courtroom while an objection to a question put to him in cross-examination was being discussed. The question asked was later permitted and the accused returned to the courtroom. Before the Court of Appeal, the accused submitted that by ordering him to leave, the trial judge had contravened s. 557 of the Code, and that this had had the effect of rendering the trial void. The Court of Appeal, by a majority
[Page 401]
judgment, ordered a new trial. The dissenting judge would have applied s. 592(1)(b)(iii) of the Code. The Crown appealed to this Court on the question raised in the dissent, and was also granted leave to appeal on two other questions.
APPEAL by the Crown from a majority judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec[2], ordering a new trial. Appeal dismissed.
Marc Brière, for the appellant.
Dollard Dansereau, Q.C., and Guy Guérin, for the respondent.
At the conclusion of the argument of counsel for the accused, the following judgment was delivered:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE (orally for the Court) ; — M. Brière a dit tout ce qui pouvait être dit, mais nous croyons que cet appel ne peut réussir. Nous sommes satisfaits d'adopter les raisons de M. le Juge Casey.
L'appel doit être rejeté.
Appel rejeté.
Procureur de l'appelante: M. Brière, Montréal.
Procureurs de l'intimé: D. Dansereau et G. Guérin, Montréal.
[1] [1966] B.R. 94, 48 C.R. 14.
[2] [1966] Que. Q.B. 94, 48 C.R. 14.
