R. v. Normore 2018 SCC 42

Reasons for Judgment:

• Delivered by: Chief Justice Wagner (Abella, Côté, Rowe, and Martin JJ. concurring)

Case Background:

• Charges: Alex Normore was convicted of attempting to commit murder, uttering a threat to cause death, and breaking and entering a place and committing attempted murder.
• Initial Trial: Normore was convicted at trial.
• Court of Appeal: The majority of the Court of Appeal for Newfoundland and Labrador set aside the convictions and ordered a new trial. Justice Hoegg dissented.
• Crown’s Appeal: The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada as of right.

Key Legal Issues:

1. Whether the trial judge erred by not taking further steps to elicit evidence from a witness who refused to answer a question from the defence counsel.
2. Whether any error in the trial judge’s handling of the witness’s refusal constituted a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice under section 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

Supreme Court Ruling:

• Judgment: The Supreme Court allowed the Crown’s appeal and restored Normore’s convictions.

Rationale:

1. Discretion of the Trial Judge:
   • The trial judge had the discretion to decide whether to compel the witness to answer the defence counsel’s question. Given the marginal relevance of the defence counsel’s line of questioning, it was within the trial judge’s discretion to proceed with the main trial and defer potential contempt proceedings against the witness.
2. Impact of the Alleged Error:
   • Even if the trial judge’s handling of the witness’s refusal to answer was an error, it did not result in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. The question posed by the defence counsel aimed to challenge the authorship of notes found in Normore’s residence, which the trial judge considered in finding Normore guilty. However, given that Normore later admitted to writing the most incriminating statement in those notes, the trial judge’s actions could not have influenced the verdict.

Conclusion:

• The Supreme Court concluded that the trial judge’s decision was a proper exercise of discretion under the circumstances and that any error did not impact the trial’s outcome. Consequently, the convictions were upheld.

Statutes and Regulations Cited:

• Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 686(1)(b)(iii)

Representation:

• For the Appellant: Sheldon Steeves, Special Prosecutions Office, St. John’s.
• For the Respondent: Derek Hogan, Newfoundland and Labrador Legal Aid Commission, St. John’s.

Judgment: Appeal allowed, convictions restored.