The same act by an individual may have more than one aspect and give rise to more than one legal consequence (see Shubley v. The Queen, supra, per McLachlin J.). In my view, the rule articulated in Kienapple was not intended and has not been interpreted to be broadly applied as so to constitute a blanket prohibition against different proceedings arising from the same act. The reference to offences and convictions thus is not, in my view, inconsequential, or just a technicality.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.