What is the test for a rule against multiple convictions?

The requirement of an offence and prosecution for the operation of the rule is, in my view, not a mere technicality. In Kienapple, supra, Laskin J. refers specifically to whether the same cause or matter is comprehended by two or more offences. In Regina v. Prince, supra, the rule is referred to a rule against multiple convictions, again consistent with the requirement for offences.

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.