Court of Appeal

Decision Information

R. v. Campbell

Court Court of Appeal
Date 2000-02-17
Citation 2000 NSCA 32
Docket CAC 155725
Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Bateman, Nancy J. (Honourable Justice) (CA); Flinn, Edward J. (Honourable Justice); Roscoe, Elizabeth A. (Honourable Justice) (CA)
Document Type Library Sheet
Relations Decision - R. v. Campbell - 2000 NSCA 32 - 2000-02-17 - Decision

Decision Content

CASE NO.                                     VOL. NO.                                            PAGE

 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN                                                         HUGH JAMES CAMPBELL

                                                                         - and -                                                                        

                                                                                                                                                           

(Appellant)                                                                                                                  (Respondent)

 

                                                                             

CAC 155725                                            Halifax, N.S.                                       BATEMAN, J.A.

                                                                                                                                                           

 

                                           [Cite as: R. v. Campbell 2000 NSCA 32]

 

APPEAL HEARD:                                 January 25, 2000

 

JUDGMENT DELIVERED:                 February 17, 2000

 

 

SUBJECT:         Sufficiency of an Information.

 

SUMMARY:        Mr. Campbell was convicted in Provincial Court of one count of furnishing false or misleading information to an election officer contrary to s.149(f) of the Municipal Elections Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c.300, as amended.  He succeeded on appeal to the Supreme Court, the Summary Conviction Appeal Court Judge finding that the Information should have been quashed as multifarious.  The Crown appealed.

 

ISSUES:              Did the Summary Conviction Appeal Court Judge err in quashing the Information.

 

RESULT:             Appeal allowed.  Conviction and sentence restored.  The information was not multifarious.  It was permissible in these circumstances to include several occurrences forming one transaction within the single count.  (Citing R v. Barnes (1975), 11 N.S.R. (2d) 272 (C.A.))

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  This information sheet does not form part of the court’s decision.  Quotes must be from the judgment, not this cover sheet.  The full court judgment consists of 13 pages.

 

 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.